Man Based Global Warming....

[viking31]

Originally Posted by Alric

As usual contrarians misrepresent the information.

Those who choose not to believe in AGW have been labeled as contrarians, skeptics, and other labels associated with negative connotations implying a closed mind, limited intelligence, and allies of corporations with only selfish intentions.

Hmm, I wonder how those who believe in AGW label themselves? Experts, forward thinkers??? Please, Mr. Alric and other AGW types, share with us your special label as an AGW person or is the unselfish quixotic crusade to rid the world of CO2 induct modesty to remain silent.

Rick
#4 2006

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

1) Your claim that scientists do not think Arctic ice loss is due to climate change is not supported by your references. The first one is a consideration that climate scientist take into account.

2) The second one is entirely compatible with the effects of climate change.

You are claiming the Arctic ice loss is due to AGW. I am saying that claim is unsupported by at least two recent studies.

The first attributes cyclical variations and is not able to attribute AGW. It does not mean that it is not a factor, but it hardly supports your case.

The second also does not support your case. It says winds are responsible for the ice loss.

So please provide evidence that AGW is responsible for current arctic ice conditions if you are going to make that claim.

[Fibb222]

This is like the 20th AGW thread I've seen go back and forth like this.

As usual there is a lot of biased thinking and rationalization. See yourselves exhibiting any of these? I've highlighted the one in red I think most apply:

from wikipedia:

• Bandwagon effect — the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthinkherd behaviour. and
• Base rate fallacy — ignoring available statistical data in favor of particulars.
• Bias blind spot — the tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.
• Choice-supportive bias — the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
• Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
• Congruence bias — the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses.
• Conservatism bias — the tendency to ignore the consequence of new evidence. (Related to base rate fallacy.)[1]
• Contrast effect — the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.
• Déformation professionnelle — the tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one's own profession, forgetting any broader point of view.
• Denial[verification needed] — the tendency to disbelieve or discount an unpleasant fact.
• Distinction bias — the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[2]
• Endowment effect — "the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it".[3]
• Experimenter's or Expectation bias — the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agrees with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appears to conflict with those expectations.[4]

• Extreme aversion — the tendency to avoid extremes, being more likely to choose an option if it is the intermediate choice.
• Focusing effect — prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
• Framing — by using a too narrow approach or description of the situation or issue. Also framing effect — drawing different conclusions based on how data are presented.
• Hyperbolic discounting — the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are.
• Illusion of control — the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes that they clearly cannot.
• Impact bias — the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
• Information bias — the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
• Irrational escalation — the tendency to make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past or to justify actions already taken.
• Loss aversion — "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it".[5] (see also sunk cost effects and Endowment effect).
• Mere exposure effect — the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.
• Moral credential effect — the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
• Need for closure — the need to reach a verdict in important matters; to have an answer and to escape the feeling of doubt and uncertainty. The personal context (time or social pressure) might increase this bias.[6]
• Neglect of probability — the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
• Not Invented Here — the tendency to ignore that a product or solution already exists, because its source is seen as an "enemy" or as "inferior".
• Omission bias — the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
• Outcome bias — the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
• Planning fallacy — the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
• Post-purchase rationalization — the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
• Pseudocertainty effect — the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
• Reactance — the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
• Selective perception — the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
• Status quo bias — the tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).[7]
• Von Restorff effect — the tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.
• Wishful thinking — the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality.
• Zero-risk bias — preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

This is like the 20th AGW thread I've seen go back and forth like this.

As usual there is a lot of biased thinking and rationalization. See yourselves exhibiting any of these? I've highlighted the one in red I think most apply:

It's a matter of what is your source of information. If you use peer-reviewed publications your conclusions will be different than if you use blogs and newspapers only to support your preconception.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

You are claiming the Arctic ice loss is due to AGW.

Where did I do such thing? Like I said, I was just showing Dr. Berman's newspaper reference was incorrect in claiming there wasn't climate change because there was no change in global amount of sea ice.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by viking31

Please, Mr. Alric and other AGW types, share with us your special label as an AGW person

I don't know. People who read science journals?

[darelldd]

Originally Posted by viking31

Hmm, I wonder how those who believe in AGW label themselves?

Easy! Haven't you been paying attention? We're "arrogant" for even considering that man-based GW might be happening.

Or did you think that the name-calling only went one way? That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by Alric

It's a matter of what is your source of information. If you use peer-reviewed publications your conclusions will be different than if you use blogs and newspapers only to support your preconception.

Because of my awareness of the normal cognitive bias failings of the human mind, I choose to accept the majority scientific conclusion on controversial issues, but try to also keep an open mind towards contrary opinions.

But at this point, to deny that AGW is real is just crazy, IMHO. I have faith (a bad term perhaps) that the consensus by climate scientists as expressed by the IPCC reports is probably correct and that it would be prudent to drastically reduce emissions.

[tripp]

I look at it as a risk management situation. We don't really know WTF is going to happen because many of the earth's processes are poorly understood. To me, that dramatically increases our risk of a catastrophic failure. We're sailing in uncharted waters... that's not good. We ought to be taking steps to mitigate the risk and that means carbon emission reductions.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

Where did I do such thing? Like I said, I was just showing Dr. Berman's newspaper reference was incorrect in claiming there wasn't climate change because there was no change in global amount of sea ice.

Sorry if I mis-interpreted.

So you agree then - there is no empirical evidence to support that AGW is responsible for arctic sea ice loss.