Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Reality Check]

As I said, they ignore most of the studies coming from scientific journals that conflict with their preconceived notion. That's cherry picking. I've cited numeorus studies that have been deliberately ignored by realcrapclimatescience.com and socalledskepticalscience.com. How many more before you acknowledge this?

So we are back to you writing unsupported assertions so

Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011).
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?
​

I've cited numeorus studies that have been deliberately ignored by realcrapclimatescience.com and socalledskepticalscience.com.

No you have not. You have cited some studies. You have never analysed the web sites and found that they did not cite them (Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science )

Pure fabrication.

Pure logic: Your definition of cherry picking seemed to be not citing every paper published on the subject. No textbook cites every paper published on their subject, Thus according to your definition, all textbooks are cherry picking (and in your opinion should be ignored like you ign ore'cherry picking' web sites and of course scientific papers !).

Sure: cherry-pick, to select the best or most desirable

A simple dictonary definition which actually makes cherry picking into good thing!
A scientific paper 'cherry picks' the best papers which present the background to the paper.
Textbooks do the same 'cherry picking', i.e. present the most desirable experiments to illustrate their points.
Some web sites select the best papers to present the arguments, e.g. look at the many articles at

• Skeptical Science
• Real Climate
• and other web sites run by scientists with a commitment to the scientific process.

So if you accept this definition then you would read and trust these web sites because they have picked the best and most desirable papers.

So it looks like your answer to these questions

• Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
• Are climate science textbooks also cherry picking, Furcifer?
• Is Nature a picking pseudoscience web site, Furcifer?

is: Cherry picking is selecting the best or most desirable so yes!

The Wikipedia definition of cheery picking is better since it points out that it can be a fallacy

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)#cite_note-0

As you can see the thing that makes cherry picking bad is that there is a body of opposing cases that are ignored. That is what you should have found in your analysis that you never did.

For example: Can you list the large nujber of papers that state that climate sensitivity is either very small or very large that are not menioned in in the

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Furcifer]

Please cite one study that they've ignored, frankly none of what you have posted has done so.

Nonsense, none of the studies I've posted have been discussed on any of these pseudoscience sites. (at least as far as I can tell. Nobody has provided a link that contradicts this)

For demonstration purposes perhaps it would be better for you to cite a particular area of study and go from there. Do you have one?

 

[Furcifer]

No we are not. You may be talking about "20th century" for some reson.
I am talking about the "20th Century average" that you claimed was calculated over a period that was wider than the 20th century.

I don't know what you're talking about. The claim was made that the "20th Century" specifically referred to the period from 1901-2000. That has been proven demonstrably false, both the claim that there's a definition and that it is held in any regards.

Who cares about "20th Century". We are talking about "20th Century average".

^ Nonsensical statement. You don't have one without the other.

Can you quote Deke Arndt "laughing" at there being a notion that there is is a defined "20th century".
There is an actual definition of the 20th century.

• 20th century: "The 20th century began on January 1, 1901, and ended on December 31, 2000"
• twentieth century: "the century from 1901 to 2000"
• etc.

All I can find is him "laughing" at the idea that someone would be ignorant of the definition of "20th century average".
NOAA said that you are wrong.

The dataset used was 1880-2006 but the "20th century average" was calculated from the 20th century part of the dataset !

I'm quite sure anyone reading this is laughing. I believe almost everyone is capable of understanding what "colloquial" means and how it applies in this case. It's been demonstrated over and over again that the so called "20th Century" is not confined by some made up definition to the years 1901-2000. There have been countless studies cited in this thread that do just that.

I really surprised this has taken 3 pages to explain. I had hoped that it would be a fairly easy concept to grasp, especially given the examples and studies cited numerous times. I think word "colloquial" is not being fully understood. Here's the definition for clarity:
characteristic of or appropriate to ordinary or familiar conversation rather than formal speech or writing; informal.
I sincerely hope this helps

 

[Furcifer]

So we are back to you writing unsupported assertions so
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

And I said I would begin citing them here. I also cited 1 which of course, wasn't discussed or even mentioned at any of those pseudoscience sites.

No you have not. You have cited some studies. You have never analysed the web sites and found that they did not cite them

Strawman, I never said I would. I have no intention of reading these pseudoscience sites. I read journals and get the science straight from the source.

Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science

As I said before, as I read studies I will cite them here and then you can tell me if these sites have openly and honestly discussed the merits of such studies. Do you understand this or does it need further clarification?

Pure logic: Your definition of cherry picking seemed to be not citing every paper published on the subject.

Incorrect. This was your own faulty contention.

No textbook cites every paper published on their subject, Thus according to your definition, all textbooks are cherry picking (and in your opinion should be ignored like you ign ore'cherry picking' web sites and of course scientific papers !).

Again, incorrect. These pseudoscience sites "cherry pick" by selectively presenting data or studies they wish to use in order to incite fear. It's the deliberate act of omission. You seem to be hung up on this having to be about comparison. That's simply not the case.

A simple dictonary definition which actually makes cherry picking into good thing!

No one said otherwise, that was your strawman.

A scientific paper 'cherry picks' the best papers which present the background to the paper.
Textbooks do the same 'cherry picking', i.e. present the most desirable experiments to illustrate their points.
Some web sites select the best papers to present the arguments,

Indeed, and many, if not most, of the "Global Warming" websites are indicative of the cargo cult nature of the current climate science debate.

Except the ones that I choose to frequent; journals. Now there are some questions about the publishing and peer review process, but for the most part they are impartial and only publish scientific studies. This is why I urge anyone interested, who has the ability to do so, to read the science from the source. It's very enlightening.

notsoskepticalscience.com
notforrealclimate.org
and other web sites run by scientists with a commitment to the scientific process.

These are pseudoscience sites, run by the cargo cult of believers who have an agenda. Why use this filter when the science is there for everyone to read for themselves?

So if you accept this definition then you would read and trust these web sites because they have picked the best and most desirable papers.

Nonsense. I don't "trust" these pseudoscience sites and their followers for anything. No more than I'd let Pat Robertson preach to me about the Bible. If I want to know what something says I read it myself.

So it looks like your answer to these questions
Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science

Are you unclear as to how the evidence has been provided?

As you can see the thing that makes cherry picking bad is that there is a body of opposing cases that are ignored. That is what you should have found in your analysis that you never did.

Nonsense. I suggest you read the definition again for comprehension. Cherry picking doesn't not mean "opposing cases" have to be deliberately omitted. (I thought that was made clear in my example).

Fear mongering is very much cherry picking when it comes to climate science.

For example: Can you list the large nujber of papers that state that climate sensitivity is either very small or very large that are not menioned in in the

What? This doesn't make any sense as it is written.

 

[Halsu]

As you can see the thing that makes cherry picking bad is that there is a body of opposing cases that are ignored. That is what you should have found in your analysis that you never did.

Skepticalscience is actually a site that concentrates on examining those opposing views, rather than omitting them...

 

[lomiller]

Nonsense, none of the studies I've posted have been discussed on any of these pseudoscience sites. (at least as far as I can tell. Nobody has provided a link that contradicts this)

Please support your continued claims that the NASA and other extensively published climate scientist are Realclimate are in fact engaging in “pseudo-science”.

Second. Thus far you have not generated peer reviewed papers that support any of your positions. As Reality Check has pointed out, the few you have presented, have turned out to either not support your claims. To avoid confusion it would be best if you restate exactly what you are claiming and provide papers that support that claim.

 

[BenBurch]

Cherry picking is when you know there is not evidence for your case, but you select data that appears to support your case anyway.

Choosing what to discuss in a web site summarizing thousands of thousands of publications is called "authorship" not "cherry picking."

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know what you're talking about. The claim was made that the "20th Century" specifically referred to the period from 1901-2000.

I am not aware of any such claim.

I am addrressing your claim that the "20th Century average" as used by NOAA extended beyond the 20th centuray. NOAA said that you are wrong.
Maybe I missed the post where you agreed with NOAA?

The "20th Century" is defined as the period from 1901-2000. But there are plenty of occations where a paper title has the words "20th" and "Century" in it but the paper contains data that only covers a part of the "20th Century".

 

[Mikemcc]

Nonsense, none of the studies I've posted have been discussed on any of these pseudoscience sites. (at least as far as I can tell. Nobody has provided a link that contradicts this)

For demonstration purposes perhaps it would be better for you to cite a particular area of study and go from there. Do you have one?

Yet none of those papers that you have posted up counter the concept of AGW! How can 'avoiding' (your contention, not mine) supporting papers be cherry picking!

You want one subject to pick on? Start with the obvious one: Empirical Evidence For Global Warming

 

[Reality Check]

And I said I would begin citing them here. I also cited 1 which of course, wasn't discussed or even mentioned at any of those pseudoscience sites.

You did ask me about 1 paper and whether it was on Skeptical Science. Is this the 1 paper that is not mentioned at Skeptical Science?
Missing out 1 paper is not cherry picking.
It is your assertion so it is up to you to produce the evidence to back it up ( which is why I asked Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science ).

There is another reason why there was no cherry picking but you would have found it out in your extensive research into the cherry picking on the web site . Or if you read my posts.

I have no intention of reading these pseudoscience sites.

That is a major problem. If you have no intention of reading the web sites then your assertion that they are cherry picking is akin to a religious belief rather than anything based on actual evidence.

If you want a bad analogy: Suppose someone states that the sky is green and refuses to look up at the sky? Is that an evidence based belief (science) or a blind faith based belief (religion)?

As I said before, as I read studies I will cite them here and then you can tell me if these sites have openly and honestly discussed the merits of such studies. Do you understand this or does it need further clarification?

No clarification is needed.
I will not do this because this is not cherry picking. You need to show that Skeptical Science has articles that take a position and ignore a "significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position". Skipping a single paper is not cherry picking.
I will not do this because it is your assertion and you need to provide the evidence.

Incorrect. This was your own faulty contention.

Incorrect. It was my faulty deduction based on your statements and lack of any actual definition of cherry picking.

No one said otherwise, that was your strawman.

It is the defintion of the cherry picking fallacy.
Biut if cherry picking is a good thng then why are you not reading these good, scientific web sites ?

Are you unclear as to how the evidence has been provided?

That no evidence other than your unsupported assertion has been presented is abundantly clear.
How is also clear - on this forum.

Nonsense. I suggest you read the definition again for comprehension. Cherry picking doesn't not mean "opposing cases" have to be deliberately omitted. (I thought that was made clear in my example).

Read what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
As you can see the thing that makes cherry picking bad is that there is a body of opposing cases that are ignored. That is what you should have found in your analysis that you never did.

Note the absence of the word deliberate? All I say is that "there is a body of opposing cases that are ignored" and no mention of any intention to ignore or not. On second thought 'missing' or 'omitted' would be a better word since 'ignored' does have the implication of intent.

The definition clearly states that cherry picking can be unintentional.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.

(emphasis added in bold italic)

What example?
You have given no analysis of any article on Skeptical Science.
A hint: Cherry picking is not skipping a single paper on an entire web site.

What? This doesn't make any sense as it is written.

I went a bit far and the moderator edited it.

Restated: Can you list the large number of papers that state that climate sensitivity is low enough that global warming is not enough to worry about (e.g. below 1°C) that are not menioned in the Skeptical Science article A detailed look at climate sensitivity. The article position is

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

But this is not an good example since it cites AR4 and thus every paper AR4 cites (and a later review paper and its cited papers)!
So feel free to pick another article, e.g. Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? or What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

 

[Halsu]

Is this the 1 paper that is not mentioned at Skeptical Science?

That paper IS discussed / summarized at skepticalscience:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

Scroll down to "Probabilistic Estimate Analysis" to find it.

 

[Furcifer]

Please support your continued claims that the NASA and other extensively published climate scientist are Realclimate are in fact engaging in “pseudo-science”.

Second. Thus far you have not generated peer reviewed papers that support any of your positions. As Reality Check has pointed out, the few you have presented, have turned out to either not support your claims. To avoid confusion it would be best if you restate exactly what you are claiming and provide papers that support that claim.

Nonsense. We're talking about the deliberate omission of studies that don't "tow the line" so to speak. Citing papers that weren't cited? It doesn't make sense. You're not asking the right questions. This is either deliberate or you don't understand the premise.

 

[Furcifer]

Cherry picking is when you know there is not evidence for your case, but you select data that appears to support your case anyway.

Choosing what to discuss in a web site summarizing thousands of thousands of publications is called "authorship" not "cherry picking."

Nonsense. Cherry picking is choosing to highlight papers and sections therein to highlight or exaggerate the issue while ignoring studies or sections that don't.

 

[Furcifer]

Yet none of those papers that you have posted up counter the concept of AGW! How can 'avoiding' (your contention, not mine) supporting papers be cherry picking!

Strawman. There is nothing to counter the concept of Global Warming. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is known to cause and increase in average global temperature. This concept has been known for 100 years.

 

[Furcifer]

It is your assertion so it is up to you to produce the evidence to back it up ( which is why I asked Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science ).

And there's an almost endless supply of scientific studies that have been downplayed by these pseudoscience sites. What more is there to say? That's the very definition of pseudoscience.

There is another reason why there was no cherry picking but you would have found it out in your extensive research into the cherry picking on the web site .

I never did extensive research on "cherry picking", nor would I need to. It's a very common term and easy to understand.

That is a major problem. If you have no intention of reading the web sites then your assertion that they are cherry picking is akin to a religious belief rather than anything based on actual evidence.

Nonsense. I don't need to read the West Baptist Church website to know how flawed their beliefs are. This is just a common tactic of fanatics; "Just read our pamphlets and decide for yourself". Do you really need to read Sylvia Brown's books to know she's a kook? I don't. And I'm not going to start because some fanatic says I can't possibly know if I don't frequent her website. The same goes with these pseudoscientific climate science websites. Just read the science as it appears in the journals, that's what real scientists do.

 

[Furcifer]

That paper IS discussed / summarized at skepticalscience:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

Scroll down to "Probabilistic Estimate Analysis" to find it.

Let's take a quick look at this link. From the IPCC:

[sensitivity]likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

This is a biased and hyperbolic statement. Look at the wording: it's very unlikely to be less than 1.5C but we can't exclude temperatures above 4.5C.

I can't believe anyone can read this and not see what the authors intent is. Downplay temperatures below 1.5C but don't "exclude" temperatures above 4.5C. This is cherry picking, this is pseudoscience. State the confidence interval as it appears in the studies, don't use misleading wording.

I'm pleasantly surprised to find the study finding its way into the pages of socalledskepticlascience.com, but wasn't surprised to find them once again misrepresenting what the paper was about. Here's the pseudoscience:

Annan and Hargreaves concluded that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is probably close to 3°C, it may be higher, but it's probably not much lower.

Wow, you say this is written by a scientist? I doubt any self respecting scientist read this paper and write the above paragraph. The paper actually concludes:

that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is extremely likely to be close to 4C, extremely unlikely to be higher than 4.5C and very unlikely to be below 1.5C

You really need to read the "conclusions" in the paper and the "conclusions" at this pseudoscience site. The bias and the deliberate attempt to misrepresent the data is blatant. The real "conclusion" of that paper is that the IPCC is extremely pessimistic when it comes to stating the results of climate sensitivity studies.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technol...above-the-arctic/story-fn5iztw3-1226156860504

But researchers found that this year the Arctic cold snap lasted more than 30 days longer than any previously studied winter, causing the rare ozone depletion.

So cold weather caused the hole. Climate change caused the warming that caused the warmth. No wait, that's not right...
The CFCs caused the cooling that caused the hole; the hole caused the warming that caused the cooling that made the hole. Um??

Or is it that global warming will be good for the ozone layer?

Confused.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you give some examples of studies that have been 'downplayed' by web sites

And there's an almost endless supply of scientific studies that have been downplayed by these pseudoscience sites. What more is there to say? That's the very definition of pseudoscience.

So now we have another assertion without evidence in addition to
Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science

Furcifer
Can you give some (say 10 or so) examples of studies that have been 'downplayed' by climate science web sites like Skeptical Science?
I would be interested in your objective measure of 'downplaying'!

What is "the very definition of pseudoscience"? Lets try Wikipedia:
pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status

So you have your definition wrong. Nothing to do with downplaying studies.

Skeptical Science for example

• Is presenting the science, not doing it (so the valid method/testing parts are irrelevant).
• Cites the scientific evidence for a conclusion in an their articles.
• Their concussions match that of the majority of climate scientists which indicates plausibility.

I never did extensive research on "cherry picking", nor would I need to. It's a very common term and easy to understand.

Yes, the term is very easy to understand.
This has no relevance to the fact that you have displayed no sign of doing any research at all. You need to do the research before making your assertion. That is the difference between blind belief and a reasoned argument based on evidence.

Nonsense. I don't need to read the West Baptist Church website to know how flawed their beliefs are.

Wow - now you think that sceince is religion !
Your analogy is incorrect. A more correct analogy would be dismissing all of the papers in a scientific journal because you have never read any of the papers in that journal.

You say that you do not read any of the climate science web sites. You have not looked for evidence of cherry picking for any climate science web site. But you assert that climate science web sites cherry pick!

You can see the problem - you are being the West Baptist Church/Sylvia Brown here (to use your examples ) by holding to a blind faith without any evidence.

 

[BenBurch]

I would like the AGW deniers here to explain to me this last summer's Arctic ice melt?

 

[Reality Check]

Let's take a quick look at this link. From the IPCC:

[sensitivity]likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

This is a biased and hyperbolic statement.

The IPCC AR4 had definitions for the probability terms they used:

Probability of occurrence:
virtually certain - more than 99%
extremely likely - more than 95%
very likely - more than 90%
likely - more than 60%
more likely than not - more than 50%
unlikely - less than 33%
very unlikely - less than 10%
extremely unlikely - less than 5%

​

So lets translate this for you

"(more than 60% probable) to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is (less than 10% probable) to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."
​

Not biased. No hyperbole. Just an analysis of scientific literature.
The last bit is a statement of fact (I suspect that the actual document has citations to back the statement up).

The paper actually concludes:
that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is extremely likely to be close to 4C, extremely unlikely to be higher than 4.5C and very unlikely to be below 1.5C

That is not the paper's conclusion. The conclusion is quoted in the article:
A detailed look at climate sensitivity

Annan and Hargreaves (2009) investigated various probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, many of which suggested a "worryingly high probability" (greater than 5%) that the sensitivity is in excess of than 6°C for a doubling of CO2. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, this study concluded that

"the long fat tail that is characteristic of all recent estimates of climate sensitivity simply disappears, with an upper 95% probability limit...easily shown to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C."
​

Annan and Hargreaves concluded that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is probably close to 3°C, it may be higher, but it's probably not much lower

What you are quoting is the author's advice to the IPCC, using the IPCC terminology:

Thus it might be reasonable for the IPCC to upgrade their confidence in S lying below 4.5°C to the extremely likely level, indicating 95% probability of a lower value.

You are also making the same mistake that I made previously. It is the "upper 95% probability limit" that is "easily shown to lie close to 4°C". That key thing to note is the upper limit part. It is not the most likely value. It is the most likely value + whatever takes the value up to the 95% probability limit.

If you had bothered to follow the close to 3°C link then you would have read an article by James Annan (one of the authors), Climate sensitivity is 3C which discusses this paper.