Confirmation Bias

[Muhammed]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

 

[westwall]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

They suffer from confirmation bias for two reasons. The first is they are piss poor scientists. Second they are monetarily invested in the fraud.

 

[Crick]

Speaking of piss poor science, you have no evidence supporting either of those charges. Contending that virtually every of the many thousands of researchers involved in climate science these days is "a piss poor scientist" is unsupportable on its face. The claim that they are "invested in the fraud", first assumes it is a fraud with out evidence, then claims they are invested in such a thing; again, without evidence.

Good science Dr Geology.

 

[midcan5]

Huh? Citizens against Global Waste? Home | Citizens Against Government Waste

If you are going to assume something for another at least attempt clarity. Confirmation bias is something of an oxymoron. Bias can stand alone. Science is empirical and all science starts as thought or a particular bias that something is something. Apples fall for a reason, why? Temperatures are rising, why?

"I want to argue for something which is controversial, although I believe that it is also intuitive and commonsensical. My claim is this: Oliver [GWD] believes what he does because that is the kind of thinker he is or, to put it more bluntly, because there is something wrong with how he thinks. The problem with conspiracy theorists is not, as the US legal scholar Cass Sunstein argues, that they have little relevant information. The key to what they end up believing is how they interpret and respond to the vast quantities of relevant information at their disposal. I want to suggest that this is fundamentally a question of the way they are. Oliver isn’t mad (or at least, he needn’t be). Nevertheless, his beliefs about 9/11 are the result of the peculiarities of his intellectual constitution – in a word, of his intellectual character." The intellectual character of conspiracy theorists | Aeon Essays

Conspiracy theories are dangerous...

 

[Crick]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

Can you name one who cannot?

 

[Muhammed]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

Can you name one who cannot?

Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Caspar Ammann, Eugene Wahl, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Scott Rutherford, Kevin Trenberth, Wei Chyung Wang, Stephen Schneider, etc... etc...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

What you fail to realize is that the confirmation bias sword cuts both ways.

Confirmation bias manifests also with those hostile to evidence in support of climate change engage in selective thinking by focusing only on evidence they believe undermines climate change evidence, and ignoring evidence which refutes their belief that climate change either doesn’t exist, or if it does exist, it’s not caused by industrial activity.

Clearly those hostile to climate change evidence cannot think logically enough to understand that their use of confirmation bias is likewise not sound science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

Can you name one who cannot?

The ENTIRE IPCC is BUILT on confirmation bias. Their Mission Statement TELLS you that they are only looking for MAN-MADE causes of GW. And that mission has been CONFIRMED by many of their leadership..

What else do you need to know? No scientific organization would write a Mission Statement with those restrictions.

Did I answer your question? And how do you not KNOW this?? You've been informed of it DOZENS of times now... Why is it that you can be so selectively stupid??

Could it BE ---------------------------------------------------- Confirmation Bias??

 

[westwall]

Speaking of piss poor science, you have no evidence supporting either of those charges. Contending that virtually every of the many thousands of researchers involved in climate science these days is "a piss poor scientist" is unsupportable on its face. The claim that they are "invested in the fraud", first assumes it is a fraud with out evidence, then claims they are invested in such a thing; again, without evidence.

Good science Dr Geology.

Actually we do. We KNOW they suck at basic math. We also know that they refuse to follow the scientific method. And we also know that contrary to good scientists they firmly believe that correlation equals causation. All of which condemns them as piss poor scientists. The money part is self evident.

 

[Crick]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

Can you name one who cannot?

Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Caspar Ammann, Eugene Wahl, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Scott Rutherford, Kevin Trenberth, Wei Chyung Wang, Stephen Schneider, etc... etc...

Demonstrate the truth of your claim. Anyone can list names.

 

[Crick]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

Can you name one who cannot?

The ENTIRE IPCC is BUILT on confirmation bias. Their Mission Statement TELLS you that they are only looking for MAN-MADE causes of GW. And that mission has been CONFIRMED by many of their leadership..

What else do you need to know? No scientific organization would write a Mission Statement with those restrictions.

Did I answer your question? And how do you not KNOW this?? You've been informed of it DOZENS of times now... Why is it that you can be so selectively stupid??

Could it BE ---------------------------------------------------- Confirmation Bias??

Every experiment seeks support or refutation of a specific hypothesis. That the IPCC had a mission is not evidence of confirmation bias. Neither is the fact that they found overwhelming evidence that the process they were searching for has been taking place.

 

[westwall]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

Can you name one who cannot?

The ENTIRE IPCC is BUILT on confirmation bias. Their Mission Statement TELLS you that they are only looking for MAN-MADE causes of GW. And that mission has been CONFIRMED by many of their leadership..

What else do you need to know? No scientific organization would write a Mission Statement with those restrictions.

Did I answer your question? And how do you not KNOW this?? You've been informed of it DOZENS of times now... Why is it that you can be so selectively stupid??

Could it BE ---------------------------------------------------- Confirmation Bias??

Every experiment seeks support or refutation of a specific hypothesis. That the IPCC had a mission is not evidence of confirmation bias. Neither is the fact that they found overwhelming evidence that the process they were searching for has been taking place.

Of course it is. It SPECIFIES that CO2 is the root cause. Thus confirmation bias is memorialized within its very DNA. Get a clue.

 

[Crick]

Confirmation bias does not take place at the writing of the hypothesis dimwit.

 

[westwall]

Confirmation bias does not take place at the writing of the hypothesis dimwit.

The IPCC didn't originate the hypothesis nimrod. They have memorialized it and stated that no other theory will be allowed to be discussed. Thus CONFIRMATION BIAS is inherent in everything the IPCC does. Duh.,...

 

[Crick]

Discussing a hypothesis is not confirmation of a hypothesis. Dimwit.

 

[Muhammed]

Can you name a single CAGW alarmist who can think logically enough to comprehend why using confirmation bias is not sound science?

Can you name one who cannot?

Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Caspar Ammann, Eugene Wahl, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Scott Rutherford, Kevin Trenberth, Wei Chyung Wang, Stephen Schneider, etc... etc...

Demonstrate the truth of your claim. Anyone can list names.

Hey, Mr. Gullible, why do you suppose that CAGW nutters feel a need to hide the decline?

 

[westwall]

Discussing a hypothesis is not confirmation of a hypothesis. Dimwit.

Demanding that no other theories may be discussed is, silly boy..

 

[flacaltenn]

Discussing a hypothesis is not confirmation of a hypothesis. Dimwit.

You are very confused between what is a Hypothesis and what is a process of investigation..

If the CDC was called into Athens, GA to investigate a cancer cluster and decided that they would only study evidence related to the local paper mill and EXCLUDE all other potential causes -- would their conclusions be a valid determination of the magnitude and cause of that outbreak? Of course not. And none of their PROJECTIONS about the spread and future of the outbreak would be believable..

Because EVERY hypothesis that is tendered during that process has an inherent CONFIRMATION BIAS.. There is never a consideration of any ALTERNATE hypotheses. It's impossible to accept their conclusions as to the cause or the projections of the future of the outbreak.

For any organized investigation of that size and magnitude -- it is NEVER a SINGLE hypothesis question. The ENTIRE PROCESS dictates the exclusion of evidence and research on alternate hypothesis.. To the point of CENSORING any process that violates the "mission statement"..

With a biased Mission Statement -- the chances of OBJECTIVE scientific inquiry are NIL...

In the case of the IPCC -- they may ASSERT that they've "ruled out" alternate hypotheses -- but in reality there is no serious effort to do that. And the "ruling out" part is more of a LECTURE than an investigation.

 

[Crick]

If the CDC were called in to Athens, Georgia and tasked by the administration to find out whether or not a certain paper mill were the source of a certain carcinogenic contaminant, that is what they would do. The IPCC is not a freelance research organization. They were called into existence by the UN to investigate the relationship between human activities and global warming. Nothing prevented them from coming to the conclusion that there was no relationship... except the evidence. And do try to keep in mind that the IPCC itself is conducting NONE of this research. They are simply assessing research done by others; others who are NOT employed by the UN and take NO influence from the IPCC's charter. If you believe the IPCC has NOT accurately assessed the research in the field, please make your case. But from other third party reviews of the literature, by Oreskes, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, Schneider, Cook and Powell, who all found enormous agreement between research results and the IPCC's conclusions, if you wish to make such a case you've a tough row to hoe.

 

[Muhammed]

Dude, Schneider openly admits to lying and actively encouraged other climate "scientists" to also lie.

Are you really that incapable of comprehending why that is not sound science?

THINK!