In our polarized society, something that seems to be more prevalent than ever before is the faulty thinking pattern called confirmation bias. Simply put it occurs when a person tries to find information, data, or opinions that support his pre-determined belief. In other words he disregards all evidence that does not support what he wants to believe, no matter how valid this opposition data is.
The best example of this is the anti-vaxxers. They have latched on to the belief that there is a direct link between childhood vaccinations and autism. Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary put forth by the scientific medical community, the anti-vaxxers refuse to abandon their beliefs. This refusal is sustained and strengthened by something referred to as social confirmation -when their circle of friends all agree and seemingly confirm her belief. It never occurs to this person that her friends are not scientists and, like her, have no basis for their beliefs and that they are engaging in the same faulty thinking.
Besides the anti-vaxxers, another group of people who engage in confirmation bias are the climate change deniers. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary by climatologists the world over that we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming aided by human activity, the deniers stubbornly refuse to accept this solid evidence that disproves their faulty reasoning. They simply discard all evidence that does not substantiate their predetermined beliefs.
They try to discredit sound science in several ways. They will search for bits and pieces of outlier data that seem to support their beliefs even if that data has been discredited by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. To simplify, it would be like a patient disregarding the diagnoses of nine cancer specialists who all agree that he has a dangerous malignancy and going with his family doctor who tells him the nine specialists are all wrong. Another technique used by the deniers is employing ad hominem attacks against a person who disproves his faulty data. They use this technique when they cannot refute opposition research. By attacking the messenger they mistakenly think they can discredit the information. These latter two techniques were recently employed by Jeff Erding and Stan Gudmundson in the FCJ regarding climate change.
So why is it important for the reader to learn to recognize these errors in logic? In the case of the anti-vaxxers, they are endangering the the health of their own children as well as those around them by refusing vaccinations. With the climate deniers, they are putting the lives of their children, grandchildren, and future generations at risk by ignoring the consequences of a much hotter and uninhabitable planet. It’s easy to see how careless, mindless, and dangerous confirmation bias can be.
Jeffrey Erding says
@ Aaron, if you want to jump in, jump in. If not, fine, but please spare me the smarmy attitude.
Of course I wanted to put Professor know -it -all on the spot. He picked the fight and he deserved to defend his position.
Don’t expect me to beg for your participation. Sources on the net to support 100% green energy are a dime a dozen. Unfortunately, 99.9% are based on misleading, phony data and climate models that are disconnected from reality.
I don’t blame you one bit for trying to keep attention focused on climate issues. Your side has lost on the economy, jobs, employment, foriegn policy, respect for life, Russian Collusion, Immigration, Socialism, and the Bill of Rights. You would be unwise to focus on topics like those, Climate issues are about the only hope you have to fool citizens into voting for Democrats.
The facts on climate stated in my questions to Herb and the Prof are based on proven history and hard data. If you can respond, go for it. Those two were in over their heads.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Jeff
The climate discussion is closer to my field of expertise. I prefer to stick to what I know best, but I’m not unwilling to discuss any of the topics you brought up.
Very well. You choose a topic to focus on first. I have your email address. Either we can discuss things via email or we can here in this forum. I would say, one pro for doing it via email is that these discussion threads get shifted down every week while emails stay on top with every new email. We also do not (or at least I don’t) get notifications when a response has been made on these threads, making it harder to be prompt. This is public, which I prefer as well, but I guess unless we switch to a forum that has the best of both worlds, I’ll leave it up to you.
Your choice.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetins Jeff,
It’s the weekend, so I don’t know when this will be published for your view, but I found this timely and relevant.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190724131624.htm
Many people have a clear picture of the “Little Ice Age” (from approx. 1300 to 1850). It’s characterized by paintings showing people skating on Dutch canals and glaciers advancing far into the alpine valleys. That it was extraordinarily cool in Europe for several centuries is proven by a large number of temperature reconstructions using tree rings, for example, not just by historical paintings. As there are also similar reconstructions for North America, it was assumed that the “Little Ice Age” and the similarly famous “Medieval Warm Period” (approx. 700 — 1400) were global phenomena. But now an international group led by Raphael Neukom of the Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern is painting a very different picture of these alleged global climate fluctuations. In a study which has just appeared in the well-known scientific journal Nature, and in a supplementary publication in Nature Geoscience, the team shows that there is no evidence that there were uniform warm and cold periods across the globe over the last 2,000 years.
Herb Panko says
Mr. Erding, the only thing important at present is to accept the overwhelming consensus of climatologists the world over that the earth is warming much faster than anyone expected 10 or 20 years ago, and humans
are contributing to it. We must act now. We must accelerate our march away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Yes, it may be expensive but that’s the cost we must pay for ignoring this threat decades ago. The evidence of an increasingly hotter earth is all over the place. If you don’t know what this evidence is, you are likely a global warming denier and fit exactly into my category of confirmation bias. There is nothing else to talk about here. Global warming caused in large part by human activity is settled science. It’s impossible to reason with someone who ignores all evidence. Do you consider yourself smarter than several thousand or more climatologists? Just drop it. Your are going nowhere with your denial rants. Don’t be a kook.
Herb Panko
Kim Wentworth says
Herb, if I may::
“Ignoring this threat decades ago”. Decades ago, 1974, would be a good place to start we were told we would be a frozen ice cube by now. I am referring to the newsweek article non of you people like to talk about. The climate changes that’s a fact. Do humans affect this, yes, to a limited degree. Global warming talk has morphed into a debate of wealth transference. This planet has gone through many stresses far greater than any mere humans can invent. Common sense has lost a foothold on this debate. You may think you can dismiss people with a different point of view put it is you who has your head in the sand.
I do agree on your anti vaxxer point though.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Kim, if I may, we discussed this already in Climate Change Mythconceptions Pt. 1.
So, when you imply that none of us want to talk about it, I can assure you that I am, and that you and I have indeed already talked about it. You can find our discussion here: http://fillmorecountyjournal.com/devils-advocateclimate-change-mythconceptions/
Or continue reading, as I provided my response to your inquiry below.
Greetings Kim,
Thank you for your response. I would be very glad to address the points you have brought up.
1. The person who made “Global Warming” into a common phrase in the scientific community (and then later more widely) was Wallace Broecker. It is a coincidence that the man died yesterday (Feb 19, 2019). It was his 1975 scientific article “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” which got the ball rolling by the late ‘70s. There wasn’t much access to his article by academics at the time (no internet) and, so, the word wasn’t spread as quickly as it otherwise could have been. By 1977, ExxonMobil (back then just “Exxon”) knew and recognized the science behind the use of burning petroleum products in massive quantities. In fact, their employed scientists did some of the original research on the topic. It’s been confirmed by some of the notes by their senior scientist James Black that Exxon knew of the effects by at least 1977. I speculate that large companies, which understandably would prefer the public to believe something contradictory to a damaging truth, have the means and motive to alter the narrative.
However, in 1965, ten years before the Newsweek article was published, Charles Keeling (a researcher focusing on CO2 levels detected at Mauna Loa Observatory) had noticed a steady rise in CO2. The consequences of increased CO2 prior to the mid ‘70s was merely known as the “Greenhouse Effect” which was indeed taught in the early ‘70s in high school science classes. As I described in my “Devil’s Advocate… 410” article, it’s the minute changes in CO2 which greatly affects the increase of water vapor, the real trigger for global warming. However, another phenomenon was happening during this time. Aerosols. Another natural effect by volcanic activity, aerosols cool the planet. Humans began using aerosols as well, en masse and constantly starting in the 1930s. It was thanks to the great work by F. Sherwood Rowlind and Mario Molina who discovered the negative affects of aerosols (particularly Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs) on our Ozone layer (our protective shield from high intensity solar bombardment). Because of their work in 1974, and the U.S. led fight against aerosols, we are seeing the Ozone begin to repair itself. I find this to be another affirmation that human activity plays a significant role on the surface of our planet.
Regarding the Newsweek article of 1975, the author, Peter Gwynne, had focused on regional temperatures in the northern hemisphere. Aerosols were still heavily used and are now known to have masked partial warming trends. So, yes, it was cold in the northern hemisphere in the early 1970s, but not globally. The Newsweek article really was a tremendous setback. Suffice it to say, one popular article from 1975 is in no way superior to all of the data from independent sources since then.
Kim Wentworth says
Hello Aaron, sorry for the late night response but since my job does not allow me to get home much before midnight here we go.
I have not re read the newsweek article, but I didn’t recall “only a northern hemisphere” factor. But I trust your point. I agree with you on the affect of aerosols including the ozone. By the same token, a slight hole on the ozone layer did not mean the end of times spouted by some “scientific circles”, still in exicistance today. As you might have gleaned from my comments in the past, I have no belief or trust in anything or anyone with even the SLIGHTEST association with the U.N. My problem is simply two things: the degree LOWLY humans affect climate change and the asinine remedies towded today. As I have stated before the current ” climate change” debate has nothing to do science. It is shrouded in politics, power and money. Oh, herbs statement on how many scientists are in agreement is a lie. Remember, ALL science is based on hypothesis, NOT “facts”.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Kim,
I took the liberty of including the Newsweek article from 1974 in my most recent Mythconceptions piece. I did not include your name, as I have had several run-ins with this Newsweek article in the past. I used much of the same language, dispelling the legitimacy of the article, but included one thing that I thought you may be interested in discovering. You won’t have to wait for the article, I’ll provide the link here for you to read the words from the author of the original Newsweek article himself.
Title: Climate Change Mea Non Culpa
https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/1975-newsweek-article-on-global-cooling-how-climate-change-deniers-use-my-old-piece.html
A hole in the Ozone layer was a serious concern because of the lasting effects and the delay in the repair. It was a new phenomenon with serious and unknown consequences. I would highly suggest you read the report from Rowlind and Molina who sounded the alarm on the topic. We avoided serious problems because of their work. Whenever scientists spout “end of times” comments, ask yourself if it’s really them making the statements and not a newspaper headline paraphrasing.
As for your comment about science being solely based on hypotheses and not facts, this is simply untrue. Name a scientific discovery about photosynthesis that isn’t based on facts. Sunlight, chlorophyll, ATP. Which of those are simply hypotheses?
Facts are observations. If science were not based on facts, then nothing technological that we have today would work. We would not be able to make any predictions about the seasons, the cosmological constants, or how certain chemistries bind metals together.
A hypothesis is an explanation proposed to explain a phenomenon. The job of the scientist is to disprove the hypothesis. If successful, the explanation for the phenomenon still needs answering. If, however, no one can disprove the hypothesis, then it becomes a Scientific Theory (not the same as an everyday theory). Observations of phenomenon become Laws which is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. If repeated experimental observations aren’t based on facts, you tell me why not? Scientific facts are not the “facts” of wishy-washy promises of politicians looking to be elected. Sometimes they use statistics, sure, but a scientific fact is something that doesn’t change no matter who looks at the data or does the research or conducts the experiment.
Science is based on facts and it’s the ultimate method humans have used and continue to use to discover more facts.
I don’t have time this morning to discuss the U.N. I recognize the concern you have. However, consider that the U.N. is made up of the appointed and elected officials of a multitude of nations. They argue with each other just as every individual government argues with itself. The U.N. may be a philosophical step in the wrong direction for what you have as values (I agree that trade agreements that have international laws superseding our own local, state, and federal government laws is cause for severe concern), but I don’t believe the U.N. is at the point you think it is. I’ll leave it at that for now, but I am willing to discuss it further.
Cheers.
Jeffrey Erding says
AAAAND, there we have it readers. Mr. Panko refuses to engage on any reasonable level to the questions I asked. As predicted.
Like the Lanesboro Professor, he just wants to shut down the opposition with generalities like, ” The science is settled” and ” 99 % of scientists agree” , both statements being pure baloney. Nothing I said was in error, and he knows it. On to the next discussion.
Kim Wentworth says
Nice 😃, love it!!
Thomas E.H. says
@Hawkey63/Jeffrey Erding
//Sources on the net to support 100% green energy are a dime a dozen. Unfortunately, 99.9% are based on misleading, phony data and climate models that are disconnected from reality.//
Sounds a bit like generalities to me! Not to mention pure baloney.
Herbert Panko says
According to your reasoning, Mr. Erding, there are virtually no scientifically established facts. If you don’t accept the scientific evidene of global warming, why dò you accept the dangers of ultraviolet radiation to humans? The link between cancer and smoking? The relationship between saturated fats and heart disease? The evidence that the earth is not just 6,000 yrs old but millions of years? That the movement of earth’s geologic tectonic plates causes earthquakes? That seatbelts save lives? I would guess that you accept all of these scientfic conclusions. So why do you accept these scientific findings but not the science of global warming?
Kim Wentworth says
Herb
Ultra violet rays adverse effects to humans is a proven fact I do believe. The link between smoking and cancer, yes, a proven fact. Although the argument of ” second hand” smoke is bogus at best. My point here is to the best of my knowledge there has NEVER be a death certificate with the words “second hand smoke”. That though is a topic for another time. Bad fats to heart disease as well as (if I may add) stroke I think is a proven fact. As a stroke survivor in 2012, I was taught much on the subject. The age of Earth as you stated I agree with as far as I am aware. The tectonic plate movement causes earthquakes, sure. But the point of some people on your side believing removing oil from the Earth is akin to removing cartilage from a joint, causing earthquakes is laughable at best, I believe. Seatbelts save lives I think has been proven. As a person who has totaled 2 cars, one being belted, one not I can personally attest for their benefit. But, as adults it should be a choice, again another topic someday.
Global warming problem is that the Earth warms and cools. There is NO debate there. The problem today is that the “warming” crowd has become political and radical. The earth goes through cycles. Always has always will. Herb, you and like minded people are reaching for “solutions” that: 1) are radical ( ANY FORM OF GREEN DEAL) 2) have become political as well as a ” wealth transference” issue
Your debate loses steam when today, things like pollution, water abuse, rain forest defolification are MUCH more now and important…..i believe.
Jeffrey Erding says
Hi Aaron, it’s an open forum, you don’t need my permission to jump in. I really think those 2 are old enough to try to hold their own in the discussion, but it is pretty obvious neither one is up to the task.
I say have at it, just be sure you don’t play into ” Confirmation Bias!” I would also appreciate your thoughts on whether the Investigation of the Trump Administration for Russian Collusion constitutes a prime example of it!
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Jeffrey,
It is indeed an open forum. However, on July 22nd you stated “I already know the answers. What I am after is a response from the learned professor. Thanks anyhow.” This illustrates to me that you had no intention of having an honest conversation about the issue. Do you now?
I ask because I want to be sure my time won’t be wasted on someone who “goes round in circles” or jumps from topic to topic too quickly as a means to avoid hard truths. The topic I am willing to discuss pertains to climate change and the questions you brought up about it. I can have the other conversations as well, but one at a time to ensure thorough thoughts and conclusions.
My request for this conversation and your response can be found: http://fillmorecountyjournal.com/learning-from-trees-and-watching-debates/#comments
I await your assurance of an honest discussion. If I don’t receive it, then you have no grounds to say that people avoid the topic, as you would be doing just that.
Cheers
Aaron Bishop says
Greeting Jeffrey,
I can go into detail on that topic. Although, you seem to only wish to get responses from particular individuals. If you wish to have an honest discussion about the topic you’re interested in, I am willing to participate.
Are you?
Cheers
Jeffrey Erding says
Mr. Panko, as usual you and the Lanesboro Professor ignore the premise and logic of people you disagree with, instead attacking while avoiding specifics.
My premise was not about a denial of climate change. It was in part to point out that climate has historically undergone radical change long before man’s influence could possibly have been the cause. Do you deny that fact?
Secondly, I contend that since wind and solar are not fool proof energy sources, achieving 100% green status is impossible using those sources, thus requiring redundant generation facilities composed of fossil fuel or nuclear fuel, all at huge cost to Minnesota consumers. Do you contend otherwise? What specifics can you share to support your position?
Thirdly, I wish to point out that climate is a global phenomenon, dependent on ocean and air currents, and man’s influence, from all over the world. I take the position that imposing wrenchingly costly energy policies on Minnesota businesses and citizens with no measurable benificial effect on climate conditions and temperatures is bad policy. What say you?
Please know that if you actually choose to engage on the facts listed in my reply, you are showing a lot more gumption than the Lanesboro Professor. He just went around in circles, avoiding these specific facts. Pretty sure you will do exactly the same thing. Up to you to prove otherwise.
Btw, does a 3 year pursuit of a phony
” Russian Collusion” fairy tale because a large group of Democrat crybabies and swamp dwellers can’t accept defeat in a national election qualify as ” Confirmation Bias?” Looks like it to me.