Life In 19x19

crux wrote:

SoDesuNe wrote:The article does not deny anywhere that global temperature is rising

Except possibly for the two sentences I quoted? Read them again, the ones containing words like "prolonged hiatus in warming"? Do you deny that this means "global temperatures haven't been rising for a long time"? Astonishing.

My emphasis:
"Although a prolonged hiatus in warming does not necessarily contradict prevailing theory, this one came as a surprise [...]". I understand that the climate system and nature is a hard to predict and that the scientist can't explain this incident. I don't need to deny anything which wasn't expressed in the first place.
"The hiatus in warming is at the centre of an ongoing debate about ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ [...]". Okay, there is a debate and the incident is in the centre of it. Debate is good. The debate is ongoing, for me this means, there are no new theories yet.

And now you read the article again with all the senctences about human pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions =)

hyperpape wrote:You are not so far off as you think about public opinion, Magicwand: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/ameri ... -rise.aspx

The go boards probably are atypical for a variety of reasons.

There is a difference 'worrying' about something and realizing it is true. So I am not sure if the article you cite is on topic here. This thread is about global worming being real of a 'hoax' (as if it is a matter of faith) not about about worrying about it. From talking to people there are many who accept the facts, yet still not worry very much.

I assume all the big-money interests (oil industry, etc) who pump resources into denying the facts - these people are not idiots, and I bet they actually know what's going on. But they don't worry - *they*, with all their money will be most likely safe from the fallback, as will their children and grandchildren. The most important thing is - next year's profits!

Bantari, if you scroll down, one question asks what is the primary cause of global warming. That's the one I meant people to see, though I should have stated that (stupid iPad keyboard "making me" compress my thoughts).

Crux: could you actually state precisely why you think that an overshot prediction in the past merits dismissing the climate scientists current opinion? That's actually a far trickier inference than you're making it sound like, especially given that only the magnitude of the increase was wrong, not the prediction of an increase.

crux wrote:So much for the earlier claim in this thread that Go players exhibit exceptional critical thinking skills.

Dunno if you meant me, but if so, I didn't actually say that, and I don't think gogameguru did either.

hyperpape wrote:Bantari, if you scroll down, one question asks what is the primary cause of global warming. That's the one I meant people to see, though I should have stated that (stupid iPad keyboard "making me" compress my thoughts).

Crux: could you actually state precisely why you think that an overshot prediction in the past merits dismissing the climate scientists current opinion? That's actually a far trickier inference than you're making it sound like.

One overshot prediction is not a problem. Repeated errors in one direction only - and by now the pattern is pretty clear - that looks very much like systematic bias.

Dusk Eagle wrote:

I think those are all conspiracy theories in the pejorative sense, but it's a bad month to post that comic. Didn't we just discover that the NSA introduced a backdoor into a major encryption standard? Remember when it was a conspiracy theory that vaccinations were being done by the CIA? Well, we did that to get Bin Laden (note: it doesn't matter whether you think that was a good idea or not--that's not the point).

It doesn't mean I believe any particular conspiracy theory--I'll wait for evidence. But it would be equally improbable for no current conspiracy theory to be true.

crux wrote:So much for the earlier claim in this thread that Go players exhibit exceptional critical thinking skills.

Low blow, very typical.

Personally, I consider it to be 'critical thinking' to learn as much as you can, and form your own opinion - but also be able to admit when you reach the limits of your knowledge and look for opinions of people who know more. This also shows integrity, something seriously missing on the other side.

And it sure beats the approach of most denialists - to look for and follow opinions of people who *don't* know - like the right-wing media, politicians, and Rush Limbaugh. Bleh!

crux wrote:One overshot prediction is not a problem. Repeated errors in one direction only - and by now the pattern is pretty clear - that looks very much like systematic bias.

Debatable that it indicates systematic bias--I don't have an example, but I wonder if there have been scientific estimates where estimates converged downwards to a value without there being a political bias.

But in any case, scientists could have been systematically biased, but that still doesn't obviously tell you anything about current predictions. How do you get from that record to "today's consensus is unreliable/obviously wrong".

Here's an example: as I understand it, the negative effects of pregnant women smoking crack were overstated for decades, for what seem like political reasons. But I do not think that crack is good for fetuses, or even neutral. It's still bad! Just not as bad as we thought.

By the way - I really wonder when will the moderators close these threads. I mean - they are so political, its scary. I have seen them clamping down on things not even 10% as political for being against the forum policy, wonder why not now. Not even a warning...

Another conspiracy?!?

crux wrote:"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade"

The 5 year mean global temperature has been flat from 1940 to 1980. So even my 40 year timeframe is a bit short. Still no explanation for your unreasonable 10 year choice.

I haven't heard about policy, but it seems like mods have gotten more tolerant of (slightly heated but not utterly nasty) discussions of politics for some time.

crux wrote:

SoDesuNe wrote:The article does not deny anywhere that global temperature is rising

Except possibly for the two sentences I quoted? Read them again, the ones containing words like "prolonged hiatus in warming"? Do you deny that this means "global temperatures haven't been rising for a long time"? Astonishing.

hi·a·tus
noun \hī-ˈā-təs\

: a period of time when something (such as an activity or program) is stopped

In other words, temperatures have taken a break from rising. It doesn't mean that they won't continue rising after the break is over.

Four facts Arctic Sea ice extent in 2013

“There was more Arctic sea ice this summer than last. That is true. And yet 2013′s summertime Arctic ice melt was still greater than the long-term average.”

hyperpape wrote:

Dusk Eagle wrote:

I think those are all conspiracy theories in the pejorative sense, but it's a bad month to post that comic. Didn't we just discover that the NSA introduced a backdoor into a major encryption standard? Remember when it was a conspiracy theory that vaccinations were being done by the CIA? Well, we did that to get Bin Laden (note: it doesn't matter whether you think that was a good idea or not--that's not the point).

It doesn't mean I believe any particular conspiracy theory--I'll wait for evidence. But it would be equally improbable for no current conspiracy theory to be true.

The relevant section is,

"The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty. For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form."

hyperpape wrote: I think those are all conspiracy theories in the pejorative sense, but it's a bad month to post that comic. Didn't we just discover that the NSA introduced a backdoor into a major encryption standard?

I don't recall discovering that.

hyperpape wrote: Remember when it was a conspiracy theory that vaccinations were being done by the CIA? Well, we did that to get Bin Laden (note: it doesn't matter whether you think that was a good idea or not--that's not the point).

I'm not certain what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound familiar.

speedchase wrote:

hyperpape wrote: I think those are all conspiracy theories in the pejorative sense, but it's a bad month to post that comic. Didn't we just discover that the NSA introduced a backdoor into a major encryption standard?

I don't recall discovering that.

hyperpape wrote: Remember when it was a conspiracy theory that vaccinations were being done by the CIA? Well, we did that to get Bin Laden (note: it doesn't matter whether you think that was a good idea or not--that's not the point).

I'm not certain what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound familiar.

• NSA backdoored an encryption standard
• the CIA did a fake vaccinations drive to get bin Laden family members' DNA.