While this sounds compelling so far, the authors went even further. They subjected the data to a blind expert test. They evaluated people’s forecasting judgement because it reveals human perception of a particular set of data. The authors asked a group of economists (each with a Masters or PhD degree in economics or an allied discipline) to evaluate the trend in global temperatures without awareness of the source of the data.
The experts were told that the data referred to agricultural output and were asked questions about whether the agricultural output had “stopped”. In fact, the authors took exact statements from a climate contrarian, except they replaced words associated with global warming with statements associated with agricultural productivity.
In this blind test, the experts strongly rejected the agricultural “pause” conclusion. In fact, they found mention of a pause “to be misleading and ill-informed”. The experts were divided about whether the “pause” statement was also fraudulent. What is particularly convincing is that a blind test like this, which removes the effects of personal biases or preconceived opinions, is the gold standard for many research areas.
Originally posted by googlefudge http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/18/in-a-blind-test-economists-reject-the-notion-of-a-global-warming-pause
While this sounds compelling so far, the authors went even further. They subjected the data to a blind expert test. They evaluated people’s forecasting judgement because it reveals human percept ...[text shortened]... personal biases or preconceived opinions, is the gold standard for many research areas.
That's great! That now doubly nails it! One less piece of nonsense for climate deniers to use. They are running out of places to hide.
Originally posted by humy That's great! That now doubly nails it! One less piece of nonsense for climate deniers to use. They are running out of places to hide.
Literally, when the planet goes to hell in a handbasket.
Originally posted by sonhouse Literally, when the planet goes to hell in a handbasket.
Umm. No.
Figuratively. Not literally.
There's probably no such place as Hell and if there were, it's exceedingly unlikely that the whole planet would "go" there. And, if it would go there, the entire planet would certainly not fit into a handbasket unless it shrunk to the density of a neutron star, perhaps. Even then, that would have to be a seriously well made handbasket.
There's probably no such place as Hell and if there were, it's exceedingly unlikely that the whole planet would "go" there. And, if it would go there, the entire planet would certainly not fit into a handbasket unless it shrunk to the density of a neutron star, perhaps. Even then, that would have to be a seriously well made handbasket.
Well, they would literally run out of places to hide (because the Earth would be inhospitable) when the planet figuratively goes to hell in a handbasket.
21 Sep '15 12:28
Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, scientists say
Back to Top