Yes, another documented hot bed for Fake Science. "The past few decades of research in cognitive, social and clinical psychology suggest that confirmation bias may be far more common than most of us realize. Even the best and the brightest scientists can be swayed by it, especially when they are deeply invested in their own hypotheses and the data are ambiguous. A baseball manager doesn’t argue with the umpire when the call is clear-cut—only when it is close." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Fudge Factor: A Look at a Harvard Science Fraud Case Did Marc Hauser know what he was doing?, By Scott O. Lilienfeld on November 1, 2010. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fudge-factor/ But what do those GD Republicans at Scientific American and The New York Times know!
The Global Warming theory did find itself in something of a "double ethical bind" - hence "climate change".
At least you could read your own references. SA did not expose the fudge factor. HARVARD DID. This is poof positive you don’t or can’t read anyone else’s Post. Is it reading comp Problem ? From your own article. “Hauser is Harvard’s superstar primate psychologist—and, perhaps ironically, an expert on the evolution of morality—whom the university recently found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct....” I trust the source, Harvard. Btw, this was 2010. Anything more recent ,? Heard the terms called cherry picking .
Actually what they call it depends on the seasons in the Northern Hemisphere. In summer its global warming, and big surprise, its hot. In winter nobody wants to hear about warming, so they call it climate change. Just watch, as soon as it warms up again, they're back to talking about warming. Its all such a joke...
Scientists do not consider Al Gore their prophet nor a God. And there is no conspiracy to alter data so that conclusions regarding scientific issues can be made.
LOL! I have shown that the scientific community has now admitted that there is a "replication crisis". Replication crisis: What do you suppose that means?
You seem to be a very determined Fake Science denier. "To do that (reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climactic change) we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Discover" magazine, Oct. 1989. In 1991 Schneider won the AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) "Award for the Public Understanding of Science." Paul R. Gross, and Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition," Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, pp 167,168. You should ask AAAS to give you an award too.
No it didn't. The scientific consensus has never been that there is a "double ethical bind" in regards to global warming. And yes, I know what Schneider said. No one person, especially Schneider, dictates the consensus. And remember, the conclusion that GHGs warm the planet and that humans would release a lot of it came about 100 years prior to Schneider.
I have as far as real deniers are concerned. Who in their right mind would deny the work of every university in the world, every govt, our military and all major industries. Oops, the key words are, “ in their right mind. “
Let me define these terms for you... Global Warming - The secular long term increase in the global mean temperature (both troposphere and hydrosphere). Climate Change - The changes that occur as a direct result of global warming. Global warming can, in fact, cause more frequent cold spells. This happens through the quasi resonant amplification of planetary waves. Overall the Earth gets warmer, but because the temperature differential between higher and lower latitudes narrows this necessarily means the polar jet will fall down to lower latitudes as it slows to conserve its angular momentum. As it slides down the latitudes there is more space for the cold air advection, warm air advection, and vorticity advection processes to act so the jet gets wavier which results in higher standard deviations of temperature and other atmospheric properties. And before you propagate yet another myth understand that "climate change" is a term that first appeared in scientific literature in the 1950's whereas "global warming" first appeared in the 1960's. Ironically both terms were coined by the same person...Murray Mitchell. Scientists did not change "global warming" to "climate change". First, they have different meanings. Second, the later actually predates the former.
Well, "he" did say that global warming is a hoax. And since global warming is a change in the climate...
I don't know...you tell me. This is your chance to educate me. Also, define "the scientific community".
I deny that man is causing any changes in a climate cycle that spans billions of years, and the data supports my view. The reality that Earth has had giant cold blooded lizards roaming around, and ice ages proves the climate changes, and all of that had nothing to do with us...
and once again I ask the question deniers all run away from... What is the cause of the climate change event we are in now? and I'll predict your response will come from these choices a) it happens B)because c)magic(they don't need a reason, see a) and b) d)you won't answer e)you'll go off on a conspiracy tangent (you won't answer) f) you'll ask a question without answering the question(you won't answer) g)you get all petulant and pout refusing to answer claiming a I have a bad attitude or I'm rude (you won't answer) I/we know you'll do a desperate web search to explain this climate change event but they'll all come back that it's AGW event...
What does serious, constructive criticism of the scientific enterprise look like? And when does that criticism tip over into unwarranted skepticism—or even feed ideologically motivated attacks on researchers’ work? https://www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/
As this thread has demonstrated Fake Science is now a well documented serious problem undermining the credibility of science and scientists. No one should defend Fake Science - but many obviously still do. I blame blind partisan politics.
I blame science illiteracy, conspiracy nuts, and rampant ideologues you're another one who refuses to answer the question...what is causing this climate change event? come on, step up show us what real science you know but ya won't you're gonna run away...
