A Reliable Negative Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

Remove all ads!

This article from Intellicast shows the basics. You can get more detailed articles by looking up the references. But basically, the temperature readings were not taking urban heating into account and many of the stations used in the studies by NASA and NOAA improperly situated their thermometers which resulted in false high readings.

This really put a black eye on the climate control and global warming arguments (in case you haven't noticed, the 'global warming' buzz word is nearly non-existant in the climate control crowd because of this). NOAA and NASA put out an article which I can't find (at least not in a reasonable amount of time -- to be honest I don't really want to spend too much time on it) which relabeled the average temperatures over the past eighty or so years with the urban heat correction (basically showing constant temps and no real rise in the past 40 years).

The climate control crowd put an interesting spin on it and put a 'delay effect' on CO2 production versus temperature. I was simply put off by the new spin and haven't really paid attention.

 

The article you linked Bruno, makes the hypothesis that the quality of weather station (e.g. good or best vs baseline) should determine temperature readings, the hypothesis was not sustained when subjected to testing (there should have been a noticeable difference between recorded temperatures, as you can see in the graph below, there was not, the full report is here).

 

I don't know how to respond to the accusations against those former NASA staff, so I won't. It would've been nice it it was accompanied with some facts, instead of just hearsay value judgements. I'm not easily convinced when a wattsupwiththat supporter labels someone an activist.

T2, the concerns mentioned in your link may well be serious ones,or a compilation of all the inconsistencies in order to cast serious doubt on climate measurements. It seems NASA didn't alter their conclusions based on this 'damning' evidence.

Article written by Joseph D'Aleo. From wikipedia:

Need I say more?

 

Then do your own research on the subject. Stop deciding to shoot the messenger and actually spend the time on the subject if it is important to you.

 

I'd be inclined to question the objectivity of that climateaudit link you sent about the data [come on: with a name like Climate Audit they're not even trying to hide their bias]. But T2 feels I should stop dismissing info based on the source, so feel free to ignore the link. It's just another wikipedia page which you could easily have found yourself.
I guess that takes the discussion back to the realms of every-opinion-is-valid. I'd prefer not to engage in political discussion of climate, where facts are in dispute, and we just argue past each other.

The link about Hansen in a pipeline protest seems more reliable. Being an activist is probably a dirty word in the USA, but in reality it's a far way away from proving somebody has a bias. You can choose to become an activist based on an unbiased decision, and reading the link made me like that Hansen guy. At worst, he used his professional position to add weight to his personal decision to join a protest. I might have done the same if I could

It looks like the messenger shot himself when he signed that paper. I did take some time to check things out, and it pissed you off. Perhaps if you guys checked stuff out too, you'd stop parroting spin stories.

 

Wait... I liked Bruno's post because I thought it was directed at BTA but if it was directed at Coin I can't agree. I know it was the other side of the world and some time ago now, but that intelligent design on trial documentary aired over here and it was really compelling viewing because you know, as America goes, so goes the world.

Just grabbing the holding from that case from wikipedia:

---
Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
---

I think if there was ever a valid case for shooting the messenger, a person bringing intelligent design to a scientific debate would be such a case.

 

I never told you to stop dismissing info based on the source. I told you to do your own research. I will often discount a source if I know they have no clue about the subject, but not because I don't agree with a person's point of view (that's just being hypocritical -- even activists can make a good point, it's just not objective as BTA pointed out). I sent you a basic link of the argument, that's all ... go ahead and prove the dude wrong, knock yourself out.

You're also confusing anger and apathy, I've been through this argument so many times that I know it's just not worth the effort.

 

Touching back on religion.

@coin

No. There are serious logic flaws here.

Other dictators have let people keep their religious beliefs. Stalin being iron-fistred doesn't explain it. Nor that Soviet policies discriminated against religious people after Stalin.

Also Stalin's branch of communism was atheist. What you essentially said was Stalin killed people in the name of a kind of atheism, so it can't be atheism. Which doesn't make sense.

It does match a bad claim Sam Harris made when he said something nearly word for word the same and just as wrong.


@BTA (others discussing Global Warming)

I actually looked at an issue you mentioned-ocean ice. I also checked sources provided by coin and yourself. In specific, coin's greenman3610 sea ice youtube and Watts most recent article on sea ice-this.

I'm breaking this into 3 parts: 1. Arctic Sea Ice, 2. Antarctic Sea Ice, and 3. Conclusion. I'm also going to give each source a point for which seems to come closer to the truth since being trustworthy has been even more a topic of discussion since when I last posted.


1. Arctic Sea Ice

Watts said that Arctic Sea ice was below average but still "normal" while Antarctic ice was above average.

I noticed a couple of times he exchanged the word "normal" for the term "standard deviation".

And that I went deeper into trends than he did. In my last post about this I mentioned the amount of Artic sea ice has been below average and "has typically been so for the last 8 years".

If you average out the first 8 years it was typically above average back then.

Plus if you average out any 8 year period between the 2 I suspect it will be closer to average with less ice than the first 8 years and more than the last 8 years.

For about the last 34 years (according to the chart) the amount of Arctic Sea Ice went from above average, to about average, to below average.

There appears to be a trend that would support claims Global Warming is real.

Use the chart I mentioned earlier to check for yourself.

Watts mentioned the trend for Arctic sea ice currently was below average but failed to mention the trend goes back for about 30 years. He even started this article with a clip of a conversation between 2 people (Neven & Pete W.) making it sound like Sea Ice (in the Arctic) was recovering.


greenman3610 said the amount of Arctic sea ice has been declining (about 0:30-5:30 in his video) for 30 years.

With Arctic Sea Ice what greenman portrayed is closer to the truth according the chart I linked to. Watts mentioned there was a downward trend but not how long it has been going and tried to portray it as something Sea Ice was close to recovering from and within "normal"-his wording. greenman's video indicated Arctic Ice has been shrinking over the long term-even including images of the Arctic Sea.

Score: Advantage/closer to truth marker (point) to greenman here.


2. Antarctic Sea Ice

Now another challenge to people who say Global Warming is real comes from when Watts points out Antarctic Sea Ice is growing.

Both Watts and greenman agree it is. The greenman video said (about 5:30-6:20) there are "different conditions" at each pole. A clip of the greenman video says warmer oceans lead to more moisture and snow which feeds Antarctic ice.

I would think warmer oceans would lead to melting ice at both poles so I'm a bit uncertain about this-though 2 news articles may support greenman. One said that melting ice from Antarctic land cools the water around Antarctic Sea Ice and helps protect it. Another points out that ice on Antarctic land and Arctic sea are melting while it grows in the Antarctic Sea.

This is a tough one to wrap my head around because it doesn't match what I would expect (Sea Ice to melt or grow in both), plus the media can be wrong and I wish greenman had spent more than 1 minute on this.

Though it is interesting that greenman's video was from 2009-which means he predicted about 4 years ago that Watts (people in Watts's camp including Watts) would use Antarctica to claim sea ice was fine.

Score: I'm going to say mixed because it really didn't meet expectations on what Global Warming would do but there is a decent explanation. My expectations would give it to Watts except for the explanation that there may actually be a way Global Warming could encourage sea ice to grow somewhere.



3. Conclusion. The only source with a conclusion was Watts, greenman said he would do more videos but I don't count that as one. As a side note notice the terms each used for the other-"deniers" for greenman and "Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts" for Watts.

Watt's conclusion was this:

All of these facts might dampen even the most dedicated Sea Ice Melt Enthusiast’s spirits, but then again, there’s always next year, i.e.:

“I have great excuses, of course, like the fact that I’m in the process of building a house (slowly reaching its climax in the next 2-3 weeks), and the melting season being less of a spectacle with slow melting and an extremely cloudy Arctic. But still, there’s always plenty of stuff to talk about when it comes to that fascinating place that is the Arctic. Next year will probably be better.” Neven
​

This is a word for word quote from Watts that I center aligned to emphasize. Watts' basic point is this year has undercut the argument Global Warming is happening and melting Sea Ice. And his quote from Neven highlights the point because he portrays Neven as reduced to making excuses for his argument and hoping new evidence will support it next year.

Since Neven (whom Watts quoted for most of his conclusion) has a conclusion of his own lets see what that says (also center aligned).

Conclusion

We're nearing the end of a melting season that would've fit in snugly between 2008 and 2009. Weather conditions have been completely opposite to what I've seen since the inception of this blog in 2010, highlighted by the three cyclones we witnessed from May onwards. But let's save that analysis for when the minimum is reached and we can weigh the difference between expectations and reality.

Later this week I will try to post about a new feature I haven't finished yet on the ASIG that helps somewhat in determining the timing of the minimum. It's just one of several things that slipped through my fingers this year, and so I apologize for not having been able to cover this melting season as closely as I did the previous three melting seasons. I have great excuses, of course, like the fact that I'm in the process of building a house (slowly reaching its climax in the next 2-3 weeks), and the melting season being less of a spectacle with slow melting and an extremely cloudy Arctic. But still, there's always plenty of stuff to talk about when it comes to that fascinating place that is the Arctic. Next year will probably be better.

I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to the next PIOMAS update!
​

What?! Did anyone else see that? Most of Watts's conclusion is word for word copied from Neven's conclusion. The apology and excuses Neven referred to were not for this year supposedly showing the evidence undercut the idea of Global Warming melting sea ice. The excuses (like his building a new house) were because he hadn't done as detailed a job as earlier and hadn't yet finished things he had done in past years.

It is one thing to say excuses have to be made because the evidence undercuts a major theory about Global Warming melting sea ice-which is what Watts portrayed Neven as saying.

It is another thing to I've been busy so I wasn't able to do as much as I usually do and this isn't as exciting right now so I'm easier to distract away from it-which is much closer what Neven actually said.

Score: I would've liked it if greenman actually had a conclusion in his video but Watts actually made his conclusion worse than that because it was very misleading (cutting a part quote from someone so that it sounds like he said something different from what he actually said). Advantage/closer to truth marker for greenman here.

Score/Closer to truth total: 2 to 0 in greenman's favor over Watts.


Arkite, BTA, T2Bruno, coin, damedog, Gaear, Shoshino, and anyone else here. Please feel free to score each article from both of these sources and explain your score like I did.


BTY T2Bruno-I do like what you said about doing your own research. As it happened I did it on these 2 sources as they related to a specific issues I'd issue (sub-issue?) I mentioned earlier.

 

You're correct it wasn't written by Watts himself (my apologies for overlooking that) but is "Just the facts" a regular visitor or regular contributor (and editor)?

It looks like the latter and I'd argue there is a difference.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/justthefactswuwt/

Now his (or her) article can may or may not be taken as denying there is a warming trend (there may be an implication of less ice melt meaning less warming) but there is little doubt this can still fall under the results and consequences points you mentioned.

 

@pplr, I'm not qualified to analyze the data (lol), but being a better judge of human nature than science, I'd say that both sources have credibility issues that stem from general snarkyness. I'll almost always tune out somebody who's first entry in a debate is to take a potshot (or shots) at the opposition. (The first thing we see from coin's guy is to call a name and say something is a crock - HAHAHA!, good one! , and BTA's guy doesn't resist the sarcasm either, though it seems to manifest later in the presentation.)

Comedy aside, the reality of what this trait tells me is that a. the person is probably grinding an ax, being as ax-grinding emotions are usually brought about by frustration and insecurity - not exactly solid foundations for sound thinking, and b. the natural implication of this - that their positions are informed to some extent and subject to the whims of emotion. A person who is not in control of his or her emotions is generally not one to be trusted or to put a lot of credence in.

In practical terms, this means I'd look elsewhere for the answers, much the same as I wouldn't consult a kid who called Sally a doo-doo bird to see if she really hit him with a stick.

 

You know, I think the American obsession with contrarians has led us down a very dangerous path. It is certainly possible that the more than 97% of all peer reviewed papers expressing a position on Anthropogenic Global Warming since 1991 have incorrectly endorsed the consensus position that human behavior is causing our climate to warm at an accelerated rate. It's certainly possible.

The scientific community has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again, but when you get a consensus as substantial as the consensus that exists in regards to global warming, the consensus opinion is usually going to be right. Let's look at the stakes. One group argues that there isn't enough evidence that all the carbon we're putting into the atmosphere is causing enough damage to warrant decisive action.

The other group (which happens to be the vast majority of scientists qualified to study AGW and interpret the data) warns of massively increasing temperatures, rising ocean levels and untold economic damage to the coastal lands where most humans live, and mass extinctions of an extraordinary scale. Given the strength of the current consensus, I'm going to need some pretty ****ing good proof before concluding that stepping away from finite fossil fuel sources and preserving what little true forest land this planet has left isn't exactly what we should be doing.

I can deal with the embarrassment of falling in line with the consensus position and later being proven wrong. I'll be happy to apologize for supporting policies that weakened and ultimately reversed our current dependency on burning finite resources purchased from autocratic regimes for fuel and preserving what forest land we have left. I'll be happy to apologize for allowing the carbon concentration in our ocean water to return to normal levels. I'll have no problem whatsoever apologizing for hastening the demise of our poor beleaguered fossil fuel industry and stimulating green energy development.

What I want to know is how those counseling that there isn't enough evidence to get off our collective asses and do something about our carbon output will feel if they successfully stall meaningful reform only to later be proven wrong by existing predictions regarding the climate being proven right. How will they feel knowing they supported policies that led to mass extinctions, untold economic damage, and the loss of much fertile land? Somehow, I doubt 'sorry' would be good enough.

Scientists are free to argue -- amongst themselves -- about the severity of AGW, but they write consensus papers for a reason. If the current consensus is right, we need to play ball, work together, and address our carbon output in a very real way -- and we need to do it now. If the consensus is wrong, well, we liked clean air and water last I checked, and we'll need to abandon our dependence on fossil fuels one way or another. Oil isn't like doritos. After you've finished crunching all you want, it'll take a few million years to get more. Seriously, this shouldn't be a political issue.

 

It's been 7 years since Al Gore's movie came out. That means we are roughly around year ten of the global warming/AGW hoax. So far I don't see any of the dire predictions that this "science" has predicted. I laughed heartily when it was explained that they haven't come true, because of global warming/AGW. I intend to continue to sit on the sidelines and mock the sheeple. This thread will be added to the list of threads that I plan on revisiting in 2025 and necroing to remind everyone of this foolishness.

Or I will be wrong and will be unable to do so as my house will be underwater (real water, not the mortgage kind).

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 23 seconds later... ----------

He won't have to, once the rich pay their fair share nobody will be poor. Don't you know that??

 

T2, I studied a lot about Global Warming in university, during my biology study. I guess I should've studied politics or debating in order to properly respond to denialists.

pplr made an excellent example of what it takes to properly investigate conflicting stories, and he broke it down very well. Some stories on denialist websites are misleading, some are based on facts and can be considered accurate enough. But debunking the claims made probably takes more effort than it took the writers to concoct their articles - so no unlike T2, the prospect of the work to be done is so daunting, I too become apathetic and unwilling.
And about Stalin, we're stumbling upon a dichotomy in definitions here. You describe Communism as a branch of atheism, just like Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. But atheism is just a catch-all prase for leftover people who do NOT qualify for a particular trait - religiosity. Lack of a trait does not constitute a trait, and it's pointless to make any generalizations about such a diverse group as atheists, because they literally have NOTHING in common.

@T2, on a sidenote: Looking at the amount of effort that went into (arguably) debunking a single claim made by denialists, can you reasonably expect people to do all that work?

BTA, the breakdown you made of what is and isn't exactly in dispute is far from set in stone. If you look carefully on the wattsupwiththat website, there are many different viewpoints:
- Global warming is a myth intentionally created by the carbon credit industry.
- Global warming is a myth created by alarmists and upheld by the prideful or misguided scientific community.
- Global warming is real, but not anthropogenic.
- Global warming is real, but there's nothing we can do about it, so let's get ready to adapt.
- Global warming is real, and it's such a great thing for us.
- It's not global warming, it's cooling!
- and many many more.

There are so many angles of attack, that's you can't even make accurate statements about what the denialist community agrees about. And any and all articles are welcome on Watts's blog site. Why? I think it's because any articles that serve to cast doubt on global warming achieve exactly the same goal, no matter what they actually say.

Gaear, this has got to be at least the 5th time I've seen you use the phrase 'ax grinding', and it's starting to look like a motif. In psychology, it's well known that people see their own failings in others, because what other comparison do you have to understand other people, besides yourself? A failing of my own, for example, is that I tell others they are not being objective and scientific. Why? Because I studied in university, got a master's degree, but don't really have any research experience to back it up. Although I'd like to see myself as a scientist, I'm not, and it's admittedly something that's on my mind.
As for what your motif may be, I'm not sure. Ax grinding is such a broad expression, it could mean you have issues with objectivity, trustworthiness, angry rants, deceptions - I don't know. You can probably answer that better than I can.

All I can say about this topic - It's just a debate thread, and has no more scientific value than Watts's blog site. Getting sarcastic and emotionally involved is indeed not the best way to go about things, but such is to be expeced from a thread discussion.

 

That and false balance in the media:

---
False balance is a real or perceived media bias, where journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence actually supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may suppress information which would establish one side's claims as baseless.

An example of issues sometimes handled with false balance are pseudoscience, as when a national nightly news program in the United States gave coverage to a backyard inventor who claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine. The program presented scientific authorities to explain why such a device was impossible, but since they gave equal time to the claims of the inventor, it may have created a false impression with audiences that his claims were credible. "Objective coverage" of lynching in the 1890s by US journalists failed, "to recognize a truth, that African-Americans were being terrorized across the nation." False balance is often found in political reports, company press releases, and general information from organizations with special interest groups in promoting their respective agendas.

Other examples of false balance in reporting on science issues include the topics of man-made vs. natural climate change, the relation between Thiomersal and autism and evolution vs. intelligent design. For instance, although the scientific community attributes a component of climate change of the last 50–100 years, particularly global warming, to the effects of the industrial revolution, there are a small amount of scientists who dispute this conclusion. Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a debate within the scientific community, even though there is a scientific consensus.
---

Here's a great example of false balance in the form of a story about a measles outbreak over here last year (highly recommended viewing, oh ACMA is the Australian Communications and Media Authority):

 

Yeah, we do that all the time here but it shouldn't be a part of 'serious' debate. (While we may be 'serious' in tone here, we're not actually doing anything productive. We're basically just humoring ourselves. No policy change is ever going to arise from a discussion on the BoM.)

Or ... ax-grinding.