Politics and Selective Perception
Source: Red State
>
A friend writes: “What do you do when presented with a chart such as the one above?”
My answer was simply that it depended upon who is showing you the chart:
• If it comes from a hard core partisan, you laugh at the flaws in their wetware and say nothing. Recognize they are not capable of comprehending logic or objective reality, and can only respond to emotional narratives.
• If they are a student, or anyone genuinely interested in markets, economics, or probabilistic analysis, you ask, in your best Socratic method, the questions below.
• If they are an investor, you simply take their money.
Sports fans, Partisans — anyone emotionally invested in any specific outcome — lose the ability to objectively judge reality. Studies have shown that their brains appear to have a form of damage similar to aphasiacs. But there is no physical damage, it is merely inherent flaws built into the wetware.
To investors, this is a devastating problem, one that eventually will become terribly expensive if they do not learn how to compensate for it. The psychological term for this is selective perception. I love tracking down examples of this at work, as it reminds me how we are all wired in a way that is filled with cognitive flaws. Investing enlightenment only is possible once you objectively recognize and learn to work around the inherent flaws in your wetware.
This chart — which is hysterically funny to anyone who can objectively review economic data — reveals pretty much nothing about either politics or unemployment. But it reveals everything about the cognitive errors of the person who drafted it.
Let’s return to our student, or anyone genuinely interested in this data: See if your wetware can answer these questions. Once you have done that, go back and review the chart again:
1) Is this time period unique or typical? Do other eras share a similar relationship between the two variables?
2) Is there a causal relationship between the two variables? Asked another way, does the House Majority significantly impact employment, or is this merely a classic example of correlation without causation?
3) What other factors might impact employment more significantly than House Majority?
4) Is there a similar relationship between White House and Unemployment? How about the Senate and Unemployment?What do these relationships reveal about the original two variables?
5) Why such a small sample? We have been tracking unemployment for many decades, along with House majorities — What does using the complete data set reveal?
6) What about other employment related data? How do wages, long term unemployment, job mobility, and labor force participation rate compare to House Majority? What about GDP, balance of trade, inflation, deficits, etc?
7) What other ways are there to consider the data? Does a peak-to-peak or a trough-to-trough measure of unemployment change the outcome of the relationship between variables?
8) What about other time periods? Does the relationship in the chart hold true for periods of 5, 10, 20, 25 or 30 year periods?
In my business, I cannot allow my personal political preferences to interfere with my ability to form a coherent and objective view of reality. Whatever the business of the person who createdthis chart is, objectively reality does not matter much.
I only hope they are active participants in the stock market . . .
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
November 6th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
The US Ponzi economy is a bipartisan project.
Just blend the blue and red, and color the whole chart magenta.
Fixed!
November 6th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Of course, the graph doesn’t prove that Democrats cause unemployment; any such conclusion is just plain silly.
Equally true, however, is the fact that of the partisans (on either side) who comment publicly, the total number of them who has the slightest interest in intellectual honesty is ZERO.
One of the questions that arises is, for an MSM pundit who is facing a highly misleading and/or specious argument from the other side, does he “fight fire with fire”, or does he try to make an intellectually honest argument?
Unfortunately, propaganda from both sides is mostly what we can expect.
November 6th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Just change the chart around again, and the democrats can be the heroes…
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4332827382_8b9c41680e.jpg
November 6th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Let’s see that chart going back an additional 40 years.
What nonsense really. BR nails it.
When people dispense with the rah rah rah for one side or the other, USA will have turned a corner.
November 6th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
How has GDP fared under democrats and republicans?
http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-1-159_files/image004.gif
November 6th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
If you are interested in selective perception and the way the brain gets rewired by beliefs (upbringing, indoctrination, brainwashing, etc.), you should read Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley. She presents some interesting insights into cognitive bias, effectively explaining in greater depth what you refer to when talking about arguing with sports fans and partisans.
Since I stopped trading (where I was dreadful at avoiding getting married to positions and generally sat on them far too long), I have become much more objective. Now that I teach this crap to biz school students, I find myself telling them every day “question everything, especially yourself, and when you think you are no longer objective, get out…you can then be objective and get back in if you want.”
I think the most interesting graph is one showing how unemployment, deficits, illegal foreign wars, and general skulduggerey have faired under either party. I think we’ll find that both parties are equally corrupt, evil, greedy, and incompetent.
November 6th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley ?
I’ll definitely check that out !
November 6th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
One of many of the problems with the chart is that it relies upon the ‘Unemployment Rate’. Up until the Chimpy Bush administration, one could count on the ‘Unemployment Rate’ to reflect the number of jobless workers in the national economy. However, during the Chimpy Bush administration, the falling ‘Unemployment Rate’ was actually an indicator of RISING unemployment.
* (From BRs June 2nd, 2007 post):
A quick primer on how this works: The Unemployment rate is depicted as a percentage, and like all percentages, it is actually a fraction. You take the total number of people in the labor pool, the total number of workers:
Employed Individuals
_________________ = Percent Employed
Total Labor Pool
Subtract the percent employed from 100% and you get the unemployment rate.
Most of us think about the unemployment rate going down due to more people getting jobs. But there’s also another way the official unemployment rate can go down. It happens when the denominator — the bottom number of the fraction — goes down.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/06/the_return_of_n.html
~
* This graph accurately refects the number of jobless workers who are no longer in the national workforce by representing only those workers that are still in the national workforce. Every year after 2000 has less workers in the national workforce:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/sixteen.png
Civilian Employment-to-Population Ratio
November 6th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
KC @ 1:45
Critics of the Bush administration economic policies like to make the argument, in effect, that we should look only at the economy during 2008, and ignore the other seven years. Not exactly an even-handed analysis.
November 6th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Here’s yo truth homies:
http://financialminorityreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Diminishing-Returns-121020091.jpg
November 6th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
KC
that’s job growth I believe.
BR should post and repost this every week and nail a copy on Bernanke’s forehead.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/09/total-10-year-job-gains-negative-203k/
November 6th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
These Presidential economic graphs are all flawed because the President can only veto bills whereas its the Congress which has to act first and in budget matters the Constitution says that those bills have to orginate in the House of Representives. So, while Reagan is ‘blamed’ for the budget deficits during his tenure those could have never happened unless the Democratic HoR passed them first. The opposite is true of the ‘great’ Clinton years where there was a GOP HoR for the years when the budget came under control. Then throw in time lags from policy decisions to economic results and its very complicated and should be explained as such.
November 6th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Barry,
Agree with the thoughts here…it’s sort of a silly graph for sure–the sample size is very small and it’s likely more just odd correlation than anything causal.
What I find interesting, though, is that you never seem to point out the “silly graphs” that liberals/Democrats will bring out at times? Is it because you’re not receiving those in e-mails? Or is it because you’re not looking?
Some of us want “centrist” Barry. Both Left and Right partisans tend to bring out bullshit graphs/polls to support a ‘narrowly focused’ argument.
November 6th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Andy T
Perhaps the GOP victory Tuesday emboldened the crazies to email me junk.
But truth be told, I believe the hard right is far more enamored with anti-science, magical thinking. From denying Global warming to the belief in the power of prayer to the empirically disproven approach to teenage pregnancy (“celibacy”), they are a target rich environment for anyone who respects logic and reasoning.
I have lots of problems with Democrats, but it rarely involves basic science or flat earthers . . .
November 6th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
NormanB,
“So, while Reagan is ‘blamed’ for the budget deficits during his tenure those could have never happened unless the Democratic HoR passed them first.”
For all eight years of Reagan’s two terms the Congress enacted budgets that were smaller than what the Reagan White House had proposed. The massive federal deficits would have been even larger if Reagan’s budgets were enacted.
~
“The opposite is true of the ‘great’ Clinton years where there was a GOP HoR for the years when the budget came under control.”
The federal budget was in NET surplus by the Summer of 1994, well before Newtie & The Blowhards ever took office and declined every year thereafter. Newtie & The Blowhards didn’t have any major federal budget legislation signed until AFTER they shut the government down twice in December ’95 & January ’96 and had to retreat.
November 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I’m having a little trouble making the leap between the nonsensical chart and the hope that those who believe such things participate in the market. Is the idea to punish them for their stupidity? How might one go about this?
A problem with idiots is that there are so many ways to be idiotic. And, the difficulty of identifying them in the first place — “Hello. I’m taking a survey. Do you believe this data? If so, do you trade? If so, then can we…”
What, exactly?
~~~
BR: The idea is to take their money, silly!
November 6th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Too many questions … here’s what I’d ask:
1) What are the odds that this is merely a coincidence?
2) What other charts or data support this relationship?
3) Are there any opposing notions, and how well are they supported by data?
Those three questions alone debunk a Great Many nonsensical notions, or at least try to steer the debate in a productive direction.
Of course, for most partisans on any issue, they have arrived at “the question” with the answers firmly locked in their minds, and they are not so much resolving the question as defending their beliefs, which most people will go to their graves in the defense thereof.
November 6th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
It is rather incredible that out of all the many things that influence unemployment — wars, weather, population imbalances, technological change, ginormous frauds, extreme taxation, plague … to name just a few — the authors of this particular chart would home in on the influence of political parties in the House of Representatives, ignoring the Senate and White House, and the aggregated political influence out in the states.
It really paints a pretty descriptive picture of the person(s) who created it, in much the same manner that relationship data-mining of one’s “friends” in Facebook or other social networks can be used to paint a quite detailed picture of the person(s) at the nexus of the relationships, without knowing a single actual fact about them.
November 6th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@DL:
I think graphic KC posted @ 1:48 pretty much invalidates that defense. 2008 was a culmination of 7 years of terrible policies and lapse regulation. Most of the “growth” that unwound in 2008 was debt fueled and unsustainable.
November 6th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Barry,
You exhibit the trait of people who are toooo smart.
You can’t ask someone 7 questions.
The simple first questions suffices.
1. Is there more data.? If yes then show it or go away.
2. If no then pick one of barry’s questions.
November 6th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Well, duh, yeah. Shouldn’t have said “what,” should have said “how.”
Wait, I did.
November 6th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Evil+Genes+by+Barbara+Oakley+
Barbara Oakley, PhD, a ‘female Indiana Jones,’ is one of the few women to hold a doctorate in systems engineering. She chronicled her adventures on Soviet fishing boats in the Bering Sea in Hair of the Dog: Tales from Aboard a Russian Trawler. She also served as a radio operator in Antarctica and rose from private to captain in the U.S. Army. Now an associate professor of engineering at Oakland University in Michigan, Oakley is a recent vice president of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Her work has appeared in publications ranging from The New York Times to the IEEE Transactions on Nanobioscience.
”
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/669905.Barbara_Oakley
QOTD:
“Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.” -Oscar Wilde
November 6th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
A friend writes: “What do you do when presented with a chart such as the one above?”
You say..yea… that’s what 8 years of Republican Horse Crap brought us…
and you say… only an idiot moron would ever allow Republicans back in the
White House based on a chart like that
how stupid can people be to forget what brought us this disaster and vote back
in the same idiots who created this mess in the first place
November 6th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
On Point 3: Limbaugh and Beck beat you to it: Gold.
Secondly, again White Males making $50,000 or less swung by 25% points to the Republican-Tea-Party, meaning there will be no Congressional effort for US job growth for another 2 years. There will be no clean energy jobs. They will attempt to dismantle the SEC, so there will be More Corporate and Madoff type FLEECING of the Rich, and then there’s the EPA where we will see More Natural Gas, and more methane in drinking water [ causing cancer ], more carbon pollution, which will eventually bring the South western forest fires into the deep south…
The “right” has made it a point of using step 3, against those who vote for them, for years.
November 6th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
JimRino,
dude, you need to stay away from the ‘Ink Blots’…
you know, you might do well by reading other than ‘Talking Points’..
see: http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Spain%27s+%27clean+jobs%27+cost as ex. ..
November 6th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
BR, Global Warming. Now remember you personally know shit about GW. All you know is what ‘scientists’ tell you is happening. Its not like other issues where personal experiences throughout our country give us a mean judgement. And what we’ve been finding out, time after time, is that the ‘scientists’ have had to backtrack on their prognostigations.
The GW effect of hurricanes didn’t continue and we are back to 1970 numbers. The sea rising effect has been halved, yes halved, because there is another phenoma with the earth rising at the pole. The Mount Fiji melting is from surrounding cities producing heat. They are still boring holes in the ice caps because they aren’t really sure that the past results are valid. The global temperature data was from sparse data that was interpolated to come up with their global temperatures. They destroyed that data!!! There is no way now to independently verify it. In the scientific community once your theories are impinged you go to science purgatory, usually. But not these guys. They get to keep the volcano of BS going and the media doesn’t report contridictory evidence.
And here’s another thing to consider: Try to imagine how you would really measure the temperature of the whole earth, mountains, deserts, seas, lakes, Siberia, jungles, etc. And further think of the instruments we have now to even try to measure this compared to what little they had even fifty years ago and you think that the historical data can come close to being correct? And you think that the amount of change that they are predicting (by the way temps haven’t gone up in over ten years contrary to the ‘scientific’ predictions) three degrees per century or 0.03 degrees per year are actually measurable.
No, BR save your disgust with certain groups for things you might come close to being able to know something about. GW is unknowable at this time.
November 6th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
NormanB,
good points for consideration..can be checked by the Title of the Book: Book TV: Harold Varmus “The Art and Politics of Science ” , at the minimum..
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/VARMUSHAROLD/
http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Harold+Varmus+%22The+Art+and+Politics+of+Science+%22
November 6th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
…this chart’s start date is somewhat “arbitrary”, assuming no political bias…hmmm
so, a phase lag between actions and response could easily be missed with such a presentation…
…i also seem to recall, the repeal of Glass-Steagal and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, occurring during a previous administration…so, political aspects of this seem more like they are across political lines – it is you against the corporation…regardless of your political affiliation…
November 6th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Considering the proprietor of the blog from whence the chart came from, it would indeed be like stealing candy from a baby.
November 6th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Barry, I think you have hit on the right way to go for the next 2 years. “O” certainly didn’t but could have, but he’s now where I’m coming from. Time to debunk all the crap like the above what ever kind of chart that is, not just in the blog, but out on the . . . . . you can surely name it better than this old geezer.
November 6th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
NormanB: “Global Warming. Now remember you personally know shit about GW.”
Is it really necessary to mention the obvious that you and everyone you know who questions GW doesn’t know shit about it either?
It’s not a matter of ‘trusting’ the scientists or anyone else for that matter, it’s whether the odds of whether accepting (admittedly tentative but) considered and peer-reviewed conclusions of scientists researching a complex field will bring you closer to the truth or whether accepting the ignorant, non-reviewed conclusions of those like you (and me) who don’t know shit will bring you closer to the truth.
Pretty easy decision: Once you really think about it.
November 6th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
@NormanB
I guess it safe to say you fit into this group :
Sports fans, Partisans — anyone emotionally invested in any specific outcome — lose the ability to objectively judge reality. Studies have shown that their brains appear to have a form of damage similar to aphasiacs. But there is no physical damage, it is merely inherent flaws built into the wetware.
So where are you investing your money???
November 6th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“anti-science, magical thinking. From denying Global warming to the belief in the power of prayer”
Wow, you really have gone off the deep end. Global warming is at best a possibility because the promoters of the idea have been proven to be fraudulent. I thought you had a problem with fraud?
You need prayer more than you think.
November 6th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
lulsh:
I doubt that. OTOH, if there is a god, maybe it’ll crush your ass for trashing its planet.
November 6th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
“Global warming is at best a possibility because the promoters of the idea have been proven to be fraudulent.”
Rhetorical gibberish. Source it, or shut it.
The beauty of science is that the data is often freely available and the conclusions can be disseminated and dissected until a theorem can be shown. Theorems do not need to be “accepted” only logically proven. Rhetoric only needs a sap to hear it and buy the bullshit to become “fact”.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:06 am
The proper response is:
“Did Invictus switch sides?” :)
November 7th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Norman, take your head out of your ass.
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:30 am
BDW – Regarding the posture on “source it, or shut up”, perhaps it should be mentioned that the source itself could be corrupted. So what does it mean if you “source it” but the source is crap? Does it become rhetoric at that point?
The GW (global warming, not Bush) debacle has shown that data was not freely available (refusal to release data), had been destroyed, attempts had been made to have competing views silenced (scientists and even journals), and data had been manipulated to arrive at predetermined conclusions. And all this done by the GW heads. With that in mind, what does that say about the source?
Funny how GW worked its way onto this particular topic. In a way it seems fitting.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:45 am
beaufou, et al: “This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.” A ‘line of empirical evidence…’ isn’t scientific proof. It might be scary to some, but it isn’t proof. And it isn’t proof enough to tax the hell out of the system thus reducing our standards of living. Further, as I’ve read but because I don’t know shit either I have to qualify it, water vapor, supposedly, is an order of magintude more important than CO2 to whatever temperature changes might be occurring.
It took a long time for me to understand what my high school physics teacher (kind of a cornball guy) would say, “Do you know what you know?” It meant for us to dig deep to question what we think is our knowledge. And to quote another person in the manner of self-questioning, “How do you know that?” I’ve asked myself these questions with regard to GW and decided that I really don’t KNOW hardly anything.
But I’ve been around long enough and in enough rough situations to know when I’m being gamed and the GW people, scientific, political, and Al Gore-like smell of deceit. If people don’t feel uneasy with this crowd they are naive.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:53 am
Norman,
Is it really that unreasonable to think that 150 years of burning oil, coal, etc., might have some side effects? And even if the evidence isn’t irrefutable, might this be something we want to err on the side of caution about?
November 7th, 2010 at 5:29 am
Uh, is it lost on the person who made that chart that they are buying into the idea that government runs the economy? I thought that was anathema to that particular crowd.
Wetware indeed.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:56 am
I think if you wanted two better labels on that chart it would be
Greenspan – Bernanke
November 7th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Thinking back to another time, it was Andrew Jackson I believe who fought to kill Biddle’s bank. He also laid the ground work for a miserable economy. But it was his Vice President, Martin VanBuren ( the little magician ) who succeeded him that took the hit for the economy. Have things really changed? Even if there IS a causal relationship, what are the lag times between a series of regulatory failures, think SEC – WorldCom, Enron, Madoff, etc, as well as 1% Fed Funds and the ensuing financial collapse?
Also, seems to me, and this is unrelated, that this whole episode of American history is reminiscent of the presidential campaign of 1896. William Jennings Bryan is alive and well in the guise of Ben Bernanke. No “Cross of Gold speeches” today, and the American public wouldn’t understand it if someone gave it now anyway.
November 7th, 2010 at 8:25 am
As for Global Warming.
We’ve crossed into new territory. The Number of People Killed Yearly by Global Warming.
- Moscow Heat Wave: 2000 dead
- Russian Wheat loss, by 600 wildfires: $15,000,000,000 price tag.
- Pakistani Floods: 20% of the country flooded. And the Death Toll: 1,100+
Plus infrastructure damage. $10,000,000,000.
Only in the “right” wing bubble, does Global Warming not exist.
Oil and Coal money should be BANNED from Politics.
Coal Production should be Halted.
But, I suppose, we’re going to have to ignore science, and wait for Texas and the South to Burn Down.
And, I say, NO MONEY to Restore the South.
You fought Global Warming for years, you can Die in it.
November 7th, 2010 at 8:28 am
Rich Texans say FU to the Sick:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html?_r=1
November 7th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Oil Industry “Republicans” LUST for Oil Continues:
US Military, just a Branch of EXXON:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/lindsey-graham-calls-for-strike-on-iran_n_779997.html
November 7th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Old Yiddish proverb says: ” Goy kill Goy, blame Jew”; so does the graph…just blame the Dem’s who are just as much responsible for the increase in unemployment during this carefully selected period as the Jew was during the 100 years war in medieval Europe…please….
November 7th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Here’s a sad example of partisan posturing from New York’s ridiculous fishwrapper:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/how-obama-saved-capitalism-and-lost-the-midterms/?src=me&ref=general
The silly journo-ho doesn’t even have his facts right — the 1929-1932 decline during the Hoover administration eclipsed the bear market during Bush’s term (not that the premise of associating market events with presidents is even valid).
Evidently one can’t expect innumerate hacks bloviating in the ‘newspaper of record’ to actually, you know, look up facts. But I can exult that the MSM no longer receives a penny in subscription revenue from me. The value of disinformation has intersected its asymptote: ZERO.
November 7th, 2010 at 9:45 am
My commendations to BR for the substantive thought he conveys in this thread …
“Sports fans, Partisans — anyone emotionally invested in any specific outcome — lose the ability to objectively judge reality. Studies have shown that their brains appear to have a form of damage similar to aphasiacs. But there is no physical damage, it is merely inherent flaws built into the wetware.”
In support, just read the comments. The majority of them prove the validity BR’s substantive thought.
Oh, one more thing … Norman appears to be a reasonable guy who understands that he doesn’t know much about GW, but has made a sincere attempt to draw a conclusion not impacted by emotional investment; which ironically serves to support BR’s overriding substantive thought, even though BR chose to take an emotional shot at GW.
Thanks for the laughs, folks.
November 7th, 2010 at 11:02 am
“Rhetorical gibberish. Source it, or shut it. ”
No problem. Where do you want me to send it? You missed all the news?
“Theorems do not need to be “accepted” only logically proven.”
That just it, theorems aren’t really proven, that’s why they are called theorems.
Listen, I think global warming is a possibility and there is no reason not to study it and deal with it if it is true, but I am not going to trust advocates that have underlying agendas who have been caught falsifying data.
Global warming has become for some, has become their economic and spiritual religion. I have another
November 7th, 2010 at 11:04 am
“I doubt that. OTOH, if there is a god, maybe it’ll crush your ass for trashing its planet.”
My God cares more for me and less for the planet. I understand your perspective however and I believe we should be good stewards of all.
November 7th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Rhetorical gibberish. Source it, or shut it. ”
No problem. Where do you want me to send it? You missed all the news?
“Theorems do not need to be “accepted” only logically proven.”
That just it, theorems aren’t really proven, that’s why they are called theorems.
Listen, I think global warming is a possibility and there is no reason not to study it and deal with it if it is true, but I am not going to trust advocates that have underlying agendas who have been caught falsifying data.
Global warming has become for some their economic and spiritual religion. I have another
November 7th, 2010 at 11:47 am
ubnutsagain: Only a dyed in the wool partisan could assert that someone who stated “…what we’ve been finding out, time after time, is that the ‘scientists’ have had to backtrack on their prognostigations” was making “a sincere attempt to draw a conclusion not impacted by emotional investment.”
Adjustment to theories in light of new data is absolutely the way science is supposed to work and it has no implication that a subject is ‘unknowable,’ indeed its opposite because it is clearly known better or there would have been no adjustment. What there is really is no evidence of is that climate scientists have been making those kinds of adjustments any more or less than any other group of scientists …except that climate scientists conclude things some folks like NormanB (and you) don’t like.
Now what I really want to know is what you are invested in these days. Like gold?
NB: A theorem is indeed a logical proof because it is drawn from universal axioms rather than empirical evidence; theorems are typical in mathematics and philosophy but never in science. Your (and my) belief in god is a theorem.
In science a theory is tentative and never ‘proven’ because it can be modified or falsified by new evidence. Belief in GW is a theory that, at this moment in time, is supported by the preponderance of empirical evidence and professional judgment. Denying it is also a theory which has little empirical support and lacks any strength or coherency outside of conspiracy theory, personal distaste or ‘theorems.’ For example the notion that GW “advocates …have been caught falsifying data” is untrue even if it is persistent; e.g., http://tinyurl.com/2aa5zot
November 7th, 2010 at 11:58 am
“The value of disinformation has intersected its asymptote: ZERO.”
machinehead,
you’re, far, too generous, in thinking that the X-axis bounds the “Value”-Proposition posed by the MSM’s disinfo/distraction disseminations
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinformation
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/disinfo (alternative ‘definition’)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distract
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dissemination
November 7th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
“For example the notion that GW “advocates …have been caught falsifying data” is untrue even if it is persistent;”
I could bore you forever with like info:
http://www.heartland.org/full/28167/Scientists_Reject_Royal_Societys_Global_Warming_Position.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/video-dr-tim-ball-on-the-cru-emails/#more-13062
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html
November 7th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
“NB: A theorem is indeed a logical proof because it is drawn from universal axioms rather than empirical evidence; theorems are typical in mathematics and philosophy but never in science. Your (and my) belief in god is a theorem.”
Agree.
“Denying it is also a theory which has little empirical support and lacks any strength or coherency outside of conspiracy theory, personal distaste or ‘theorems.”
Disagree. We do not know conclusively if GW is just a phase or cycle as opposed to a relentless trend based on causative factors. Certainly not enough to demonize those who do not share the same view.
November 7th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
To the Climate Change deniers, the following list of global scientific academies, chock full of actual climate scientists (as opposed to propagandists on the payroll of the oil, timber, and mining corporations) disagree with you:
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* German Academy of Natural Scientists
* Brazilian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* French Academy of Sciences
* Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* National Academy of Sciences (US)
* Royal Irish Academy
* Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
November 7th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
lulsh: Those sites are actually rather entertaining in an odd sort of way but what they are not is credible resources for scientific analysis or discussion on climate change or anything else.
The Heartland Institute for example has been widely discredited and directly accused of serial lying; e.g., http://tinyurl.com/2aruxfy and http://tinyurl.com/249ppz2 and although it is secretive about its funding sources the evidence indicates most funds come from industry (Tobacco, Oil, etc) and strongly conservative/plutocratic foundations (Koch, Scaife, Walton Family, etc) and there are no scientists on its board of directors as of Feb 2009; see http://tinyurl.com/yejuvy
The interview of “Dr. Tim Ball,” who is an historian, not a climate scientist, is an opinion that is contradicted by the formal findings of those who actually investigated the CRU email hack and charges arising from it as indicated in the CSM link I provided above.
And Mish, an economist, not a scientist, basically echos Ball’s opinion and even asserts that this “proves” climate change is a hoax. I would hope for the sake of Mish’s clients that he does not rely upon anecdotal data in making investment recommendations much less argue that they “prove” anything but, in any case, there is nothing in his discussion that demonstrates anything except his general lack of knowledge about the topic and science methods generally. I lack the former myself but not the latter which does help prevent a certain amount of foolishness.
November 7th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
“And Mish, an economist, not a scientist, basically echos Ball’s opinion and even asserts that this “proves” climate change is a hoax”
Mish provided the article/news about the fraud. I am not using his expertise in science to form my opinion.
The same news was reported by others. I do not think this proves GW is a hoax but it sure calls into question some the data used to promote the idea.
Listen, if you try to discredit everyone who disagrees in some manner with GW as a pawn of big oil then you sabotage reasonable debate. Both sides have some bias. There are many scientists who believe in global warming who are backing away from the fervency of some like Gore. There is a lot of money riding on GW becoming the religion of choice.
November 7th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
A common point of attack of the skeptics is the climate change models that are relied upon by IPCC to predict climate futures by mainstream climate scientists. The skeptics often attack the models for their failure to deal with elements of the climate system that could have an impact on the amount of warming experienced. But given the complexity of the climate system, biosphere interactions, and the carbon cycle system, the only way to make predictions about climate futures is to rely upon models.A common point of attack of the skeptics is the climate change models that are relied upon by IPCC to predict climate futures by mainstream climate scientists. The skeptics often attack the models for their failure to deal with elements of the climate system that could have an impact on the amount of warming experienced. But given the complexity of the climate system, biosphere interactions, and the carbon cycle system, the only way to make predictions about climate futures is to rely upon models.
Relying on models, eh?
Hope they aren’t using the same quants we used in the securitization biz.
November 7th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
The skeptics often attack the climate models despite the fact that climate models will probably never be able to prove with high degrees of certainty what future global temperatures will actually be. This is the case because the climate models will for the foreseeable future need to simplify a complex and chaotic climate system, rely on speculation about future population, technology, and use of fossil fuels, and make reasonable guesses about human health and environmental impacts of temperature change through the use of environmental impact science, an inherently uncertain science. Therefore, the skeptics’ attack on mainstream climate science on the grounds of its use of unproven assumptions in the climate models hides a very controversial but unstated ethical position, namely that governments should not act until strong scientific proof is in
November 8th, 2010 at 1:38 am
The discussion was interesting until it focused on GW.
Let us go back to the original question, “The Chart”.
I wonder if there is any scientific research, in a BR meaning research, that shows the delay between action (political event, major economic event, significant change in currency rate, etc) in regards to the economy and what that is visible in the un-employment statistics.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:37 am
Good heavens! How did a post about unemployment turn into a pissing contest over global warming? Stay on subject, people!