Irony
The New Scientist (“new” in most magazine titles meaning “socialist”) has yet another whole issue aimed at slamming climate skeptics. You might start to think they felt threatened or something.
I found the cover hugely ironic:
The implication I guess is that climate skeptics are somehow trying to silence real scientists. This is enormously ironic. With a couple of exceptions, including the unfortunate legal crusade by the Virginia AG against Michael Mann, it is climate alarmists rather than skeptics who have generally taken the position that the other side of the debate needs to be silenced.
By the way, as I said in the intro to my last video, I have chosen to embrace the title of denier – with one proviso. Being a denier implies that one is denying some kind of proposition, so I am sure thoughtful people would agree that it is important to be clear on the proposition that is being denied. For example, I always found the term “climate denier” to be hilarious. You mean there are folks who deny there is a climate?
I don’t deny that climate changes – it changes all the time. I don’t deny there is global warming – global temperatures are higher today than they were in 1900, just as they were higher in 1200 AD than they were in 900. I don’t even deny that man is contributing somewhat to the warming, not just from CO2 but from effects like changes in land use. What I deny is the catastrophe — that man’s actions are leading to catastrophic changes in the climate. I believe many scientists have grossly over-estimated the sensitivity of temperatures to CO2 by grossly overestimating the net positive feedback in the climate system. And I think much of the work assigning consequences to even small increases in global temperatures – from tornadoes to hurricanes to lizard extinction – is frankly crap. While I think the first mistake (around sensitivity) is an honest error, some day scientists will look back on the horrendous “science” of the consequences of warming and be ashamed.
It strikes me that a real scientific magazine that was actually seeking truth would, if it wanted to dedicate a whole issue to the climate debate, actually create a print debate between skeptics and alarmists to educate its readers. If the alarmist case is so obvious, and its readers so smugly superior in their intellect, surely this would be the most powerful possible way to debunk skeptics. Instead, the New Scientist chose, in a phrase I saw the other day and loved, to take a flamethrower to a field of straw men.
For those who want to watch the straw men go up in smoke, The Reference Frame has an index to the articles in this issue.
Garry:
New Scientist has been flogging the AGW straw man for a long time. Here’s a sampling of article from the December 2, 2000 issue (that’s not a typo, from the year “two thousand”). Even 10 years ago, they loved “carbon,” carbon sequestration, and carbon trading, all of which are joyously touted in the articles below:
#
Title:Time to come clean.(Hague climate talks)(Brief Article)
Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p3. (833 words)
#
Title:A broken pact.(talks between U.S. and Europe)(Brief Article)
Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p4. (1018 words)
#
Title:Grim prospects.(environmental law conference)(Brief Article)
Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p5. (317 words)
#
Title:Glad to be green?(attitudes on global warming)(Brief Article)
Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p6. (497 words)
#
May 14, 2010, 11:28 amTitle:Why the world must stop and count its carbon.(Brief Article)
Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p6. (280 words)
shills:
‘It strikes me that a real scientific magazine that was actually seeking truth would, if it wanted to dedicate a whole issue to the climate debate, actually create a print debate between skeptics and alarmists to educate its readers.’
It strikes me that if a denier really cared enough about climate change skepticism to create a blog for it, he might also have the time to submit a paper on it.
I know you’d love a debate because that can portray the argument as even sided, which it is not.
May 14, 2010, 5:23 pmWally:
Good lord shills, have you not realized Meyer is mostly posting “news” and/or other’s research while providing some criticism and analysis? He isn’t doing his own basic research here, at least not much of it.
May 14, 2010, 6:36 pm-
“I know you’d love a debate because that can portray the argument as even sided, which it is not.”
-
Please, prove this claim would you? Or are you just trying to incite the crowd as all trolls do?
Waldronic:
Ironic? Why yes. Although I suspect a better word for Mr. Meyer’s blog and the entire deniosphere is ‘hyporcritical.’
It would seem that Mr. Meyer wants to cast stones but is incensed when someone else does. As I’ve posted before, discrediting works both ways. And I know this makes denialists like Mr. Meyers, Wally, ADiff and the rest of the tribe – who propagate a good deal of accusatory but unsubstantiated propaganda – rather mad when they are under the microscope. It’s the old maxim: Preach hate and you get hate back.
But this, “It strikes me that if a denier really cared enough about climate change skepticism to create a blog for it, he might also have the time to submit a paper on it,” is completely unfair, Shills. How do you expect Mr. Meyers to actually research a write paper when he has a full-time job, a family, a novel he’s trying to sell, and a blog? Hell, he doesn’t even have time to read the posts on his blog! What can you expect?
What’s happening, folks, is that the scientists are fighting back in the same medium that the denialists have been using for several years now. Something that apparently makes the deniosphere pretty irate. See below if you dare, tribe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc&feature=player_embedded#
May 14, 2010, 7:09 pmShills:
Wally,
Haven’t you seen his video, or his layman’s guide to global warming? He seems to have some ideas he wants to communicate about the science. If they are not his own ideas, he doesn’t ref. them much.
‘Please, prove this claim would you? Or are you just trying to incite the crowd as all trolls do?’
which claim?
May 14, 2010, 7:30 pmShills:
Waldo,
‘is completely unfair, Shills. How do you expect Mr. Meyers to actually research a write paper when he has a full-time job, a family, a novel he’s trying to sell, and a blog?’
I see your point. But he has managed to write a 90 page publication, make a feature length video , and do at least one media interview on this subject. Obviously he has done a lot of reading on the subject and feels confident enough to do what he has. If he has the time for all this, why can’t he submit a paper?
May 14, 2010, 7:53 pmShills:
To clarify Waldo. the 90 p. publication I refer to is not the novel he wrote.
May 14, 2010, 9:18 pmWally:
Shills,
Everything I’ve seen is very well referenced where needed, not really sure what you think you’re seeing.
“which claim?”
Wow, that stupid huh shills? The claim located right above, the one that I quoted… You know…“I know you’d love a debate because that can portray the argument as even sided, which it is not.”
You made a claim, prove it.
May 14, 2010, 10:36 pmWaldally:
Sorry Shills, I was being factious about Mr. Meyer’s work.
Mr. Meyer has absolutely no intention of submitting his ideas to peer review because, despite everything, Mr. Meyer is a highly intelligent man and knows full well nothing he produces would survive professional scrutiny. The blog is a relatively safe haven, particularly if one does not read the comments.
I have often wondered if the deniosphere attracts frustrated science types who would like to take part in a scientific debate of some kind but lack viability. There are any number of posters here who make claims to being engineers or scientists or researchers that, when questioned or their claims examined, appear to be anything but and generally disappear after said examination. I suspect the blogosphere allows people to feel like they are taking part in a vast scientific exercise as if they really were government or university researchers. Kind of sad, really.
And what do you expect, Wally? Shills made what I think is a fairly accurate albeit generalized comment about the deniosphere – the “proof” you are looking for is all over these threads. CS and its associates love the idea of “debate” because they can produce a good deal of “information” which, on first glance, appears legitimate. Look back at the C3 comments on the “Bad Idea” thread – perfect example that.
Don’t sweat it, Shills, to simply be pedantic about unimportant things is one of Wally’s tactics on these threads – I’d just ignore him.
Cheers.
May 14, 2010, 11:14 pmADiff:
As usual the ‘defenders’ of catastrophic Global Warming aren’t defending the science, not only because they simply can’t, but also because to them it’s not about science, it’s about ideology. The need to try to marginalize and silence the critics of one’s viewpoint instead of answering the mounting evidence that’s the only ‘denier’ that matters, merely makes clear GCW’s advocates are ideologists defending a political position which, to them at least, has assumes the role of a Religion in their view of themselves, and the Universe.
Meyer’s is a commentator and analyst; a reporter of developments increasingly contrary to most, if not all, of the speculative predictions of dangerous warming, putatively from increased CO2 levels, and various speculative catastrophic impacts therefrom. All of these predictions are being decisively disproved by a mounting volume of reputable and through scientific studies. Yet, for various reasons, a large community of politically motivated advocates for these dire ‘the sky is falling’ predictions, clings to them and tries to defend with rhetoric and sophism, using every propaganda ploy and logical fallacy ‘in the book’ a premature speculation increasingly discredited because of their emotional attachment to its political usefulness in pursuit of their statist, and yes, socialistic, agendas.
Sorry guys, this tale’s just about spun out. The ‘threat’ of Global Warming is rapidly evaporating, and any consensus that it calls for some kind of drastic action is losing favor in accelerating fashion.
All that’ll be left of ‘Global Warming’ before too long is just a Dog & Pony show by the politicians, anodyne enough not to threaten, but presented for the benefit of those moronic ‘true believers’ who’ll cling, in gradually dwindling numbers, to the ‘True Faith’.
And in the end the Losers will be Academia’s public credibility, the reputation of ‘Science’ for objectivity and political secularism, and the Environmental Movement in general.
May 15, 2010, 2:30 amPaul A:
“All of these predictions are being decisively disproved by a mounting volume of reputable and through scientific studies.”
Care to name some of these studies? Please note, for my purposes the most reliable scientific studies are those that are peer reviewed. Works of pop science and blog ‘science’ don’t have much value.
May 15, 2010, 9:50 amDoug:
The credibility of Climate Science within other scientific disciplines was never that high anyway. Well done ADiff for setting it out exactly as I see it. Thank you.
Only thing I would add is that credibility has a lot in common with virginity. Once you have lost it – you cannot get it back.
I would only differ on one small point and that is true scientists have felt for some time that the shenanigans with the data and code and the hiding of data etc is an embarrassment to science in general.
So yes the consensus is evaporating, but the ground swell is more than that. It is just a matter of time.
The Trolls can flag up and wiz round all the sceptic sites under the sun – but it matters not a jot. Because a troll is a troll and a believer and someone who asks questions is a scientist and a scientist is by definition – sceptical.
Faith has no place in science – Climate Science is too politicised and influenced by proponents of the Catastrophe theory. I almost wish Exxon were paying me to write this and be of a sceptical mind – but I can assure everyone that no one pays me anything for my having a point of view.
Contrast that to the Public Funding of Climate “Research” and you can see where the gravy train is running.
May 15, 2010, 10:00 amMaurizio Morabito:
On every single topic I know anything about, the NS has always shown itself inaccurate if not misleading (sort of the print edition of BBC’s Tomorrow’s World). Glad to see they haven’t changed a bit…
May 15, 2010, 1:59 pmhunter:
Defending the idea that we are experiencing a climate catastrophe due to CO2 is endless entertainment provided by the true believers for free. Now how great is that?
May 15, 2010, 3:25 pmShills:
‘ Well done ADiff for setting it out exactly as – I see – it. Thank you.’
Cute.
‘The Trolls can flag up and wiz round all the sceptic sites under the sun – but it matters not a jot.’
Denier sites, not ‘sceptic sites’ to be accurate. Most skeptical groups support AGW science I think. And if my trolling doesn’t matter a bit, well then okay, at least the world outside of these blogs seems to be acting (kinda) against global warming.
May 15, 2010, 5:40 pmMajor Mike:
All of these claims and counter-claims lack a grounding in facts, which are quite simple. The “hockey stick” is falsified by the divergence of recent tree-ring proxies with the instrumental record, and the divergence of tree-ring proxies with geological and botanical evidence during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ages. Simply put, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny during the entire 1300-year period it purports to depict.
May 15, 2010, 6:20 pmObviously, if it’s been warmer naturally in the past, there is no compelling evidence that current warming is not natural.
Waldinger:
****”because to them it’s not about science, it’s about ideology”
You are correct, ADiff, we are worried about your ideology. In fact, the only reason that blogs such as this one exist is because of your ideology. The only thing fueling blogs such as this one is ideology.
The rest of ADiff’s post and the ones that follow are more of the same generalized, unsupported, inaccurate commentary that is so familiar by this time. By the way, ADiff there is very, very little actual “science” on any of these posts or their commentary. Most of thee “developments increasingly contrary” come from pretty dubious sources. Mike, Doug, and Maritzio all make unsupported statements about the state of climate science – none of which they prove in any way – and this certainty only exists if one stays safely in the deniosphere.
I was thinking about going back through the blog and tallying which posts have any “science” in them, where the “science” comes from, and which are simply propaganda. That might be interesting at some point.
Thus we might question this comment:
****”decisively disproved by a mounting volume of reputable and through scientific studies”
Share some? Post some links.
And, while you’re at it, discredit this (some interesting points about Lindzen):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc&feature=player_embedded#
As I posted earlier, the deniosphere is now experiencing some of its own medicine, and the deniosphere does not like the taste of it at all.
May 15, 2010, 7:39 pmBoros:
Breaking News
Download complete APA explanation for all the GW hoopla — Amazing stuff!
http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf
May 15, 2010, 8:39 pmDoug:
Oh deary deary me.
Glad that I annoyed a believer!
“Shills:
‘ Well done ADiff for setting it out exactly as – I see – it. Thank you.’
Cute.
‘The Trolls can flag up and wiz round all the sceptic sites under the sun – but it matters not a jot.’
Denier sites, not ’sceptic sites’ to be accurate. Most skeptical groups support AGW science I think. And if my trolling doesn’t matter a bit, well then okay, at least the world outside of these blogs seems to be acting (kinda) against global warming.”
Once again we see the spittle spluttering swively eyed believers having to attack.
As for the “world outside these blogs” – do you read what is happening or do you just refer to the AGW mutual admiration society?
Oh and yes – thanks – I am kinda cute! ;0)
May 16, 2010, 3:54 amShills:
‘Sup Dougie,
I wouldn’t call my response an ‘annoyed’ ‘attack’, more a correction.
Not sure whatcha readin’, but instead of telling me, I strongly recommend you refer all the AGW experts to it so they can get wind of what you smart guys have come up with.
May 16, 2010, 4:36 amron from Texas:
A Diff was right. It is typical rhetoric from the alarmists. They can’t prove their soi-disant “scientific” theory so they attack the person who dares to be a skeptic. Childish sandbox shenanigans like “Well, why aren’t you doing research, or this, or that, or 9 other things? The answer, people like him, or even myself, we have to work for a living to afford the socialist state that you want.
Instead, why don’t you prove the basic tenets of your theory. But you can’t use “what ifs.” You have to use hard data, thermodynamics, basic laws of science and logic. I predict that you will not be able to and will engage in more polemic, usually addressed at anyone who does not accept corrupted computer games, I mean, models as scientific “proof.” As time goes by, it will be revealed that you are simply socialists looking for any way in to advance your political agenda. When this avenue closes off, you will find something else and the whole dance will start up again.
I’ve been following these debates for over 2 years, now, and not a single person has been able to prove CAGW. They can calculate all they want and it depends on which formula you are using but not one single shred of proof, not one actual documented causal link. But I have seen 2 years of name-calling and character assassination on those who would dare to question the holy writ of CAGW.
May 16, 2010, 6:55 amWaldo definitely not from Texas:
Oh Ron,
****”Instead, why don’t you prove the basic tenets of your theory.”
Certainly, Ron, you realize that there is a mountain of evidence.
But just in case you haven’t run across this in your two whole years of research: http://www.ipcc-data.org/
Or go to any library, public or university, ask the librarian for access to Ebscohost. Look up global climate change. You will find plenty’o'evidence there. You won’t do this, I know. But please don’t make egregious statements like the one above unless you first do even a little research. Or do, let the cyber-world see your thought process and your frank but unintended admission of ignorance.
Is it “proven?” Don’t know – my best understanding is that, like all theories, scientists are pursuing the evidence and drawing conclusions from that. And the scientists, at least, are convinced. Bloggers who are supporting a socialist state (funny one that)? Not so much. That’s why I fall in with the scientists.
And this: “Well, why aren’t you doing research, or this, or that, or 9 other things? The answer, people like him, or even myself, we have to work for a living to afford the socialist state that you want.”
Cry me a river, Ron. We all have jobs (at least most of us, I suspect) and if you are too busy working to look up the evidence that is clearly out there, free, and only a mouse-click away, then suspend your opinion. If you don’t have the time to research a subject, let the professionals handle it.
May 16, 2010, 10:05 amDoug:
“Shills:
‘Sup Dougie,
I wouldn’t call my response an ‘annoyed’ ‘attack’, more a correction.
Not sure whatcha readin’, but instead of telling me, I strongly recommend you refer all the AGW experts to it so they can get wind of what you smart guys have come up with.”
No – you are annoyed – why else would you bother? And you are clearly attacking anything that you see as disagreeing with your “belief” – heck! – you even see yourself as some sort “power” able to “correct” my heretical thinking ;0) – if it were not so tragic it would be funny.
As for the “experts” – that is EXACTLY what is happening from now on. No more hiding behind pseudo religious belief systems where rather than publish the data we are expected to take someone’s word for it because “The scientists have spoken” – Remember that philosophy? – I do – it was mind numbingly puerile then as it is now.
So if you want your belief system to prosper – I would be careful what you wish for – because everything your AGW “experts” produce now is going to be the subject of proper scrutiny. Not the Mutual Admiration Society Hockey Stick Club that combined secrecy with bad statistics.
So yes – I am happy to wait. a) because I think the real climate (no pun intended) will do what it wants and prove over time that the models used by those who “believe” are over egging the problem and b) proper sceptical scientists are now looking at the data and will let the rest of us have the true picture. Something we all know we have been denied thus far.
All I have to do is wait – I will make my mind up when the science is proven not based on models designed by those with a political agenda. I do not want a belief shoved down our throats by the likes of Hansen who is clearly politically motivated. In contrast what you have to do is wait and hope that the likes of Hansen have got it right. If they have – fine – if they are proved to have been working to an agenda and that past data is suspect – why they hell would anyone want to put faith is such so called “EXPERTS”?
All they are “expert” at is fooling people and securing grant money to keep them on the gravy train.
Those that support them (literally) without question are those that need some sort of catastrophe to make their life “whole”. This is a well documented fact that some people really do need to have such focus in their lives. The fear of AGW=Catastrophe provides that focus.
Meanwhile – the rest of us just sit back and wait for the climate to do its thing (as it seems to be at the moment ;0) – and keep a sceptical mindset that ensures the hype does not overcome reality.
May 16, 2010, 10:50 amCharlie:
“Skeptics trying to silence real scientists”? Let’s begin with a bit of news. Al Gore is a politician-opportunist… not a “real scientist”.
May 16, 2010, 12:07 pmThen add the unfortunate fact that a lot of “real” scientists at universities (and the UN) have been bought (rented?) and lured into “adjusting the data” so they can get grants for “more studies are needed”. Dear readers, it’s all about money, power, and politics. Now that the truth is out, “real” scientist have sullied their reputations by fighting the facts rather than agreeing to go back and start all over again. Is it possible that “real scientists” are now trusted less than politicians and used car salesmen?
Waldie:
****”All they are “expert” at is fooling people and securing grant money to keep them on the gravy train.”
***”the unfortunate fact that a lot of “real” scientists at universities (and the UN) have been bought (rented?) and lured into “adjusting the data” so they can get grants for “more studies are needed”. Dear readers, it’s all about money, power, and politics.”
Prove either of these comments please? These are both very easy accusations to make. But can you substantiate it?
May 16, 2010, 12:37 pmshills:
Dougie,
‘No – you are annoyed – why else would you bother? And you are clearly attacking anything that you see as disagreeing with your “belief” – heck! – you even see yourself as some sort “power” able to “correct” my heretical thinking ;0) – if it were not so tragic it would be funny.
Nope. the stuff you have said is regurgitated all the time on these blogs. I don’t get annoyed about it any more. Just correcting ya. However, I still like ‘attacking’ your likes but I haven’t actually attacked you. But then, we might just be playin’ with semantics yo?
Never said I was a ‘power’.
you say: ‘ I will make my mind up when the science is proven not based on models designed by those with a political agenda’
Lol. sounds like you’ve already made your mind up.
May 16, 2010, 4:42 pmWally:
Shills, I see you returned to the tread here, but haven’t cared to actually attempt to support your claims as asked. So can we all agree you’re just a troll…?
Further, can we all just ignore this fool and like “minded” friend now?
May 16, 2010, 5:41 pmShills:
Wally,
You want me to show that the science around AGW is generally one sided? No need brother. So many denier arguments are predicated on it. Like the idea that the experts are suffering from group-think, the peer-review system not publishing alternative ideas, the funding system not funding alternative ideas etc.
you say: ‘Everything I’ve seen is very well referenced where needed, not really sure what you think you’re seeing.’
perhaps you could show me where Meyer’s ref. list is for his layman’s guide?
May 16, 2010, 10:46 pmWaldy:
***”can we all just ignore this fool”
And then please, Wally, post something about how GW scientists are trying to “silence the skeptics.”
By the way, Shills, Wally tries his “you’re-just-a-troll” tactic when he’s frustrated.
May 16, 2010, 11:21 pmDoug:
Oh deary deary me II
I say:-
“I will make my mind up when the science is proven not based on models designed by those with a political agenda”
Shills responds:-
“Lol. Sounds like you’ve already made your mind up.”
Both feet, straight in – never even sees the irony or aware of it. (but given the Americanisms if I make the assumption that shills is from the USA then seeing as how our friends across the pond rarely do ;0)- perhaps it is understandable)
But if not – it is amazing Shills – given the subject of the post.
Why is it that those that “believe” whilst they obviously must be derived from the same gene pool as the rest of us, they insist of providing us with evidence that they we produced from the shallow end? Such that they are not “deep thinkers” and need simple beliefs and faith and the ability to refer us to their “Gods” to make them happy. When we sceptics have faith in our own ability to make our mind up and do not need the crutch of “belief”.
The psychology of unquestioning belief is very much evident with these believers. We are in the presence of “missionaries” – not trolls!
;0)
May 17, 2010, 12:00 amShills:
Dougster,
Well snap man! I don’t get it. What Irony have I missed?
FYI. I’m not from the land of the free. I’m a sun lovin’ larrikin with a gut full of ‘roo meat and a mouth full of expletives.
And seeing as you might like psychology you should check out this from the American Psyc. Assoc.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf
May 17, 2010, 2:02 amWally:
Shills,
So I guess when I make a claim in the future, and you doubt its factuality, I’ll just say there is no need to bother proving it because of some very general reasons. Will that make you happy?
And shills, a little hint for you. In science no one cares how many people believe some, its the quality of the data and analysis that matter. So if you had 10,000 Manns and Jones, but just 2 Pielke and Lindzens armed with better data, better analysis and better logic, and have a one sided debate favoring the 2 over the 10,000. So no, your nonspecific support for you argument along the lines of “well skeptics wouldn’t argue for group think if it weren’t one sided” is not sufficient. That kind of argument assumes group think = one sided debate. This is not true, and not true for rigged peer review and granting either.
But by all means, feel free to make up some other BS or crawl back into what ever hole you came from only to come up to make more blind claims.
And as for the references, was there a specific part of that document you are unsure of? While he doesn’t have a references page, he does reference in the text. So again, what are looking at, specificly?
May 17, 2010, 8:17 amDougster:
Wally – “In science no one cares how many people believe some, its the quality of the data and analysis that matter.”
Well said that man!
And Shills – thanks – I like the “Dougster”, and I am sure therefore that you won’t mind my nom de plume for you – “Shillyboy”.
LOL!
May 17, 2010, 9:02 amADiff:
Paul A.,
Apparently you’re new to the site…. If not, you’re being disingenuous and dishonest. But I’ll assume the former for now. I’ve listed literally dozens of such references on this site in past. Rather than just post a huge list of redundant references, I’ll recommend you buy a copy of “Climate of Extremes” ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/1933995238 ) which is extensively and meticulously referenced to literally dozens of recent scientific publications on the topic of correlations between observed behaviors of various phenomena and the (apparently purely speculative) predictions of Dangerous Anthropomorphic Global Warming (DAGW) hypotheses. That one work will give you plenty to chew on.
You also might want to review just the references in Mr. Meyer’s various presentations available on this site.
All this assumes you actually want to take a look at the basis for the statements, and aren’t just throwing that out as another form of rhetorical dodge, for which I’m willing to credit at this point.
It’s a good read and the referenced sources highly enlightening, although many are also quite technical. Enjoy!
May 17, 2010, 10:45 amADiff:
I should also be noted again, I believe, that (at least for many of us here) it isn’t about whether or not there’s been a general warming trend, or that at least some of it appears attributable to increasing CO2 levels (the degree of which is still arguable, of course)….it’s the failure of observed data and detailed studies to show ANY trend consistent with the accuracy of the dire, ‘end of the world’, predictions of DAGW proponents, about droughts, increasing sea-level rise, dramatically increased ice cap melting, wild fires, increasing storm/precipitation/variability &etc ad nauseum….but quite the contrary, that none of these thing’s normal historic patterns appear correlated to warming or CO2 in any detectable way. Has there been warming? Yes, it would certainly appear so, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Is the rate accelerating, or rapid enough to represent a threat of any kind? No, except in some very limited special cases, having to do with threatened populations of some wildlife constrained by development from adaptive behavior. So the real bottom line is there is no crisis, no emergency, no impending disaster, no reason for extraordinary action.
As far as the CW is concerned, it always takes it a while to catch up with changing developments…and when it does it can be counted on to react as if it were the original discoverer of something new and unprecedented…..as always.
So my advice to DAGW advocates would be: try not to get run over by the bus when it leaves the station. Most will (as do the majority who more-or-less always follow the latest CW) just gradually adjust their views accordingly, but there’ll be a few who just can’t let go of something so closely aligned to the socio-political cockles of their hearts, so to speak…and will fight the changing CW to the bitter end.
But like Mr. Zimmerman said: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…”
May 17, 2010, 11:18 amDougster:
““You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…”
I thought that was Bob Dylan!”
;0)
Great posts Adiff – well done – and thanks.
May 17, 2010, 12:05 pmJusta Joe:
Waldo definitely not from Texas:
Certainly, Ron, you realize that there is a mountain of evidence.
I think Ron meant valid evidence not IPCC garbage.
May 17, 2010, 2:39 pmJusta Joe:
In several years when CAGW is well and truly a universal laughing stock the climate cranks will have moved on to the next cause célèbre and will be DENYING or at least down playing that they ever were on the CAGW bandwagon.
Then we’ll see some real denying.
May 17, 2010, 2:47 pmWaldoe:
****”Pielke and Lindzens armed with better data, better analysis and better logic”
Actually, the more one looks into Lindzen the more one realizes he is cherry-picking and preaching his own brand of true believers (look at the link I posted above). Pielke is far more complex and tends to critique the science, not disavow it.
****” think Ron meant valid evidence not IPCC garbage.”
How do you know it’s garbage, Joe? How do you know more than the IPCC scientists? Are you one of Wally’s new super-scientists, Joe? The single outlier who somehow generates better data and logic than the mass of world renown scientists of the IPCC? Clearly you are no mere Joe-the-Plumber!
May 17, 2010, 2:48 pmShills:
Wally,
Your 10,000 vs 2 thing is missing the point. The debate is one sided in terms of expert supporters, despite/ before consulting the evidence–I’m not saying numbers = truth, merely that the numbers are one sided. And if you can’t see that then no one can help you.
No reference list Wally!!? You think this is ‘well referenced’!? His in-text stuff barely exists and you know it. I’m not gonna waste time with your disingenuousness. I’d rather just wait for the time when one of your buddies releases a paper or two to support your denier theories. Still waiting…
May 17, 2010, 5:45 pmShills:
I should clarify. From prev. post. So I don’t get accused of pushing G. posts back. I mean papers that cast serious doubt on current AGW theory. And such a finding would prob. get a lot of attention in the scientific community and in the media, so it will be hard to miss.
May 17, 2010, 6:08 pmJusta Joe:
“How do you know it’s garbage, Joe? How do you know more than the IPCC scientists?” – waldoe
Have you been in a cave for the last year or so, or are you intentionally playing dumb? Even your fellow climate cranks are criticizing the IPCC. The IPCC is having to retract over inflated claims, revise, and review their report(s) almost daily. The IPCC has even had to establish an “independent” panel to dredge through the accumulated garbage. Much of the crap they’ve been publishing comes right out of wild eyed environmentalists pamphlets. Also don’t give me the IPCC are scientists BS. They’re basically an instrument of “environmental” groups.
Selective Science Boy, Don’t go around calling out people for not being scientists. Your idiotic point is moot because there are plenty of scientists that disagree with CAGW. Go back to your paymasters and tell them your blog counter-attack is failing miserably. Tides foundation funding might be better spent elsewhere on softer targets.
May 17, 2010, 6:51 pmWaldjoe:
****”Have you been in a cave for the last year or so, or are you intentionally playing dumb? Even your fellow climate cranks are criticizing the IPCC. ”
Actually, Joe, I’ve been here on CS, learning a good deal about climate science and getting a good healthy dose of denialist mentality. What I might suggest is that you step out of the deniosphere. Opinions about the IPCC and the various people and agencies in question are not quite so dire once one steps out of the cyber-deniosphere.
Could you be specific about which scientists and which challenges you are posting about? Let’s take a look at where you get your info from.
May 17, 2010, 7:13 pmWally:
Shills,
But who cares is the numbers are one sided? We want the correct answer, not the popular answer. So, if you can’t see that numbers of catastrophic AGW supports vs. skeptics is besideds the point, no one can help you.
“No reference list Wally!!? You think this is ‘well referenced’!? His in-text stuff barely exists and you know it.”
Look, you need to bring up something specific, otherwise this all just hot air. Even better would be to go through his entire text and find the total number of claims requiring references and the percent that are actually referenced. Anything short of that is just you spewing your inflamatory unsupported BS.
And you have to love the irony. You’re critical of Meyer’s supposed lack of references, but you haven’t reference a damned thing on this thread despite requests. You a hypocrit sir.
May 17, 2010, 7:38 pmShills:
Wally,
you say: ‘So, if you can’t see that numbers of catastrophic AGW supports vs. skeptics is besideds the point, no one can help you.’
it is relevant to my point. In terms of how the public interpret these things. Which is all I was ever talking about.
You say: ‘Look, you need to bring up something specific, otherwise this all just hot air.’
Hmm, nah. I think it would be obvious to just about anyone who compared Meyer’s stuff to a proper essay.
You say: ‘You’re critical of Meyer’s supposed lack of references, but you haven’t reference a damned thing on this thread despite requests.’
I don’t feel the need to ref. stuff which is prob. common knowledge to most peeps keeping up with the stuff, esp. like you.
May 17, 2010, 8:14 pmDougster:
How typical of a missionary “believer”!
Shills states:-
“I don’t feel the need to ref. stuff which is prob. common knowledge to most peeps keeping up with the stuff, esp. like you.”
So here we have the true arrogance of someone who truly “believes” – who clearly thinks the rules, apply to everyone else but not, of course, to them.
So what to do, when confronted with such faith?
Use the reference sources they want to ignore. Previous posts identify reference sources and indeed they are available. Such as :-
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1933995238#reader_1933995238
And one I would recommend that has a wealth of reference sources clearly published, obtainable and verifiable.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Climategate-Corruption-Science-Independent/dp/1906768358
………………….
Is there anything more pathetic than someone of a dubious faith demanding that those sceptical of that “faith” provide proof and references, but when asked to do the same responds:-
“I don’t feel the need to ref. ……….”
Scared Shilless that their chickin little world is collapsing around them more like.
May 17, 2010, 10:24 pmShills:
Dougster,
No one ref. common knowledge. A lot of what Meyer writes is not common knowledge. The rules apply to me just the same, you are just missing the difference.
Those books you link to are prob. one step in front of Meyer in terms of referencing. That’s fine. But why don’t they publish these ideas through peer-review? And that has been my argument here from the start of this thread. Why doesn’t Meyer or those others publish something through peer-review?
May 17, 2010, 10:53 pmDougster:
The Climategate emails showed just how corrupt the peer review process had become within Climate reseach “circles”. A long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
Other emails illustrate how those within the peer review “circle” embarked on a campaign to discredit peer-reviewed journals that dared publish studies which contradicted the man-made global warming hypothesis. To me these emails illustrate that the peer-review process is/was completely corrupted.
Warmists can invoke “peer-reviewed studies” until they are blue in the face, but the fact is that the entire foundation of the argument has been debunked now it is proven that an inherent bias to censor unfavorable studies from appearing in such journals has been in place.
May 18, 2010, 12:00 amShills:
Well, Dougster. If all the corruption is so plain to see, and has been since months ago, then why aren’t heads rolling? And if these corrupted journals have been caught out, wouldn’t they be playing nice now, under the gaze of watchdogs and the like? Maybe you fellas can submit a paper without fear now?
May 18, 2010, 12:34 amDougster:
That is indeed happening. But we do need totally independent watchdogs – not interchangeable Poachers/Gamekeepers.
However, we all want proper stats and proper peer review. Peer review works well only if those doing the peer review are open and honest. The evidence is clear that many in the field of Climate Change Science were politically biased to one end of the spectrum. Hence we sceptics not being that bothered about the Hockey Stick Club peer process and so taking our thoughts and data straight to the ultimate peer group.
As for any “fear” factor re publishing – the fear was never there, never an issue. The truth will always out. And the barmy thing is that when you have Alarmists stating that Global Warming will fry us and that the Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2035 – and then these predictions do not happen, or are seen to be hyped up, those of a sceptical scientific mindset come to the fore, whereas the Alarmist spin falls away.
As for the IPCC – it is a flawed politicised quango that needs the politicians and NGO’s out and true scientific discipline in. To say that the IPCC produces Peer reviewed science is daft when you look at what they passed off as being peer reviewed when in fact it was nothing of the sort.
Like I say – it is only a matter of time. And sadly you Alarmists have to wait and hope for a catastrophe to pin your hopes on. Because unless we have some sort of climate calamity – you are all out of credibility.
I became a sceptic when people scared of having to live in the real world wanted some doom laden prophecy to enable them to opt out and blame others started to politicise science to make their own gravy train.
Whereas we realists can look at what is really happening and ponder the ratcheting down from Global warming to Climate change to Climate destabilisation.
What will we have next Climate variability?
Or will it all just boil down to the world becoming more like us Brits – being obsessed with the weather.
Climate Change? – Always has done.
Should we use resources better? – of course we should.
Should we focus solely on restricting CO2 with all its associated costs to indigenous people and the developed world as well? – no because the models used thus far assume the worst case scenario and were written by people with a vested interest.
May 18, 2010, 2:17 amShills:
Dougster,
you say: ‘But we do need totally independent watchdogs – not interchangeable Poachers/Gamekeepers.
care to elaborate?
And who is this ‘ultimate peer group’? Why are they ‘ultimate’?
May 18, 2010, 4:12 amJusta Joe:
More playing dumb…
“Could you be specific about which scientists and which challenges you are posting about? Let’s take a look at where you get your info from.” – Waldoe
I don’t think I referenced a particular “scientist” or challenge. The problem with the CAGW hoax is where to start. It’s pretty ridiculous from top to bottom. My favourites are usually the oft-debunked outlandish catastrophic predictions.
The IPCC’s myriad scandals are well documented. Just look them up. They’re probably EVEN chronicled beyond the so-called ‘deniosphere’.
May 18, 2010, 8:31 amWaldistrict:
I think this little comment got overlooked.
****”We want the correct answer, not the popular answer.”
How do you know you haven’t already got the “correct answer,” Wally?
How do you know that Pielke and Lindzen are not providing you with a different sort of “popular answer”? Or, more precisely, do you think the Lindzens of the world are providing an answer that is more “popular” with a very different demographic which you fall into?
And Dougie, I’m willing to bet you will not believe anyone – “independent watchdog” or not – unless they want to hang and quarter climate change scientists – then, I’m willing to bet, you’d be satisfied.
May 18, 2010, 8:33 amDougster:
Shills says:-
“Dougster,
you say: ‘But we do need totally independent watchdogs – not interchangeable Poachers/Gamekeepers.
care to elaborate?
And who is this ‘ultimate peer group’? Why are they ‘ultimate’?
1) – the simplistic investigation into Climategate has so far been the typical whitewash. Even before it had started one member of the panel had to resign because he was so overtly alarmist! And then we had revelations about other members of the panel. So what we need is an unbiased approach – not the same group of alarmists propping up a viewpoint that is under increasing pressure – and quite rightly so.
2) – the ultimate peer group – (my goodness – not very well read are you shillyboy ;0)) – your peers – my peers – there peers – everyones peers. In other words the populace in general.
The alarmists need popular support and now that the bubble has burst the “populace” will be looking long and hard at those that say “Trust me – I am a Climate Scientist!”
May 18, 2010, 8:56 amDougster:
Oh good grief – Waldstrict is “willing to bet”.
The last gasp of the charlatan – I have no evidence – but I just know etc etc. – well you would lose.
Grow up please guys – we are not into betting here – I am not interested in your willingness to wager – The IPCC may wish us all to hell on a SUV because they see it as being “most likely” (at 90% not the more usual 95%)
So who wants to bet?
Charlatans – that’s who.
May 18, 2010, 9:15 amWally:
Shills,
“it is relevant to my point. In terms of how the public interpret these things. Which is all I was ever talking about. ”
Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.
“Hmm, nah. I think it would be obvious to just about anyone who compared Meyer’s stuff to a proper essay.”
Ok, so you’re just spewing hot air.
“I don’t feel the need to ref. stuff which is prob. common knowledge to most peeps keeping up with the stuff, esp. like you.”
Probably? So if its only “probably common knowledge,” you need to reference it. Most people know cancer is the biggest killer of old people, or cardiovascular diseases over all, or lung cancer is the largest “preventable” killer, etc., but you still reference facts like those, particularly when questioned. If your argument relies on a fact of some kind (and basically all arguments do), you have prove the fact is actually true, otherwise your entire argument is invalid.
May 18, 2010, 10:05 amWally:
Waldo,
“How do you know you haven’t already got the “correct answer,” Wally?”
I likely already have, yes. But I don’t think its the one you’d like…
“How do you know that Pielke and Lindzen are not providing you with a different sort of “popular answer”? Or, more precisely, do you think the Lindzens of the world are providing an answer that is more “popular” with a very different demographic which you fall into?”
Oh, boy, so now you’re suggesting that I believe Pielke or Lindzen because I fall into some “demographic?” As if to insinuate my race, nation of origin, religion, age, political beliefs, or what ever other demographic categories you want to bring up, influence my ability to logically, rationally and fairly review the evidence at hand and critique it? This is your argument? Please, go look up logical fallacies and give them a thorough read. After all, why couldn’t I just pose similar idiotic leading questions to you?
You know what, on second thought, you’re totally right. I believe evolution because I’m a a white catholic. I also believe relativity because I’m in the all important 18-35 age group and married. Isn’t it obvious how my “demographics” in those areas have lead me to believe certain scientific theories….gosh, you’re so right waldo….
I’d feel sorry for you waldo, if I didn’t think you’re doing this largely because you just want to put us on, oh and also if I wasn’t of Irish decent. HAHA, keep it up, you make me laugh.
May 18, 2010, 10:20 amWaldographic:
****”I likely already have, yes. But I don’t think its the one you’d like…”
Oh Wally, Wally, Wally – arrogant much? And the answer(s) I’d like is that the Earth’s natural cycles include warming and cooling trends and that we are in the midst of a warming trend, that humans are not responsible for screwing up yet another aspect of the environment, and that we can all sit back and bask in the glow of another relatively fertile age which will make us healthy, wealthy and wise. You see, Wally, I do not want climate change to unnaturally affect planetary health. I know that you insist on seeing the world in strict demographics, for and against, but it does not work that way for me.
I would also like to believe that Santa Claus is coming in July, that Elvis is alive, that Price Charles will pay off my student loans, and that the oil spill in the Gulf is going to magically disappear. But I do not believe in things simply because I want to. That is the defining feature of your demographic.
I do not know if the topic we debate endlessly is occurring or not – but I would prefer to leave this argument to the scientists who might know about such things.
So, the question is really, why should I believe your answer? There are far, far more qualified people who have a different answer. Whether or not it’s the one I would like is another story.
****”so now you’re suggesting that I believe Pielke or Lindzen because I fall into some ‘demographic?’”
Yup. That is precisely correct. I wasn’t thinking of the factors you mention above, but I believe you fall into a category of personality that, for whatever reason, thinks a certain way.
May 18, 2010, 12:06 pmWaldapharian:
***”my ability to logically, rationally and fairly review the evidence at hand and critique it”
By the way, I don’t believe you do these things. In fact, it seems patently obvious that you do not.
May 18, 2010, 12:08 pmWaldawahooooooo:
***”The problem with the CAGW hoax is where to start. It’s pretty ridiculous from top to bottom. My favourites are usually the oft-debunked outlandish catastrophic predictions.”
Okay, let’s just start with your favorite two – how’s that?
****”The IPCC’s myriad scandals are well documented. Just look them up. They’re probably EVEN chronicled beyond the so-called ‘deniosphere’.”
Oh yes, I’ve been doing this very thing for several months now at CS. And no, these so called “myriad scandals” exist almost exclusively on blogs or in questionable media sources – the deniosphere, in other words.
May 18, 2010, 12:11 pmWally:
Waldo,
You sound up set, what’s the matter poor boy? Don’t like your idiocy providing humor?
“I believe you fall into a category of personality that, for whatever reason, thinks a certain way.”
Yeah, you’re right. I fairly and rationally review evidence before determining my opinion (and I know how you hate that, you’d rather we just blindly follow the “consensus”). But I’ve never heard of someone using a personality type as a demographic. Between your endless logical fallacies, personal attacks and out right sloppiness with the English language I find it surprising you have mental capacity to get out of bed and turn on a computer, much less actually use it. I guess it speak volumes for the guys at microsoft and apple for making these amazing machines easy to use.
Anyway, keep telling us all what your little brain has come up with, it is amusing.
May 18, 2010, 12:26 pmWally:
Oh and this has to be the best part:
“You see, Wally, I do not want climate change to unnaturally affect planetary health. I know that you insist on seeing the world in strict demographics, for and against, but it does not work that way for me.”
Coming from the guy that is trying to pigeon hole me into some vague personality type “demographic” that is being exploited by Pielke and Lindzen? Oh the irony…and no I don’t really expect you to understand the irony.
Haha, did it occur to you, you may be the type of “demographic” that Jones, Mann, and Gore are trying to appeal to? You know, stupid people…haha, I can’t help but laugh at you anymore Waldo. I’ve entertained your idiocy for far too long.
May 18, 2010, 12:33 pmJusta Joe:
Waldo, You’re either a paid Astro-turfer or the most obtuse Klimate Kool-Aid partaker that I’ve ever encountered. Your basic premise that CAGW scepticism is exclusive to a few blogs is beyond ludicrous. The CAGW hoax has got to be one of the most beleaguered “scientific” theories ever. The only thing that keeps this ridiculous proposition afloat is the insatiable greed for money and power that is the hallmark of the Int’l left and their “environmental” fellow travelers. The (I hesitate to call it) “scientific” theory of CAGW has been assailed by everyone from MIT professors on dowm from the outset.
“Okay, let’s just start with your favorite two [outlandish predictions] – how’s that?
Perhaps later… There are so many. Pretty much everything imaginable has been blamed on GW. You’d think that you would know that.
“myriad scandals” exist almost exclusively on blogs or in questionable media sources – the deniosphere, in other words.” – Waldoe
Talk about “denial”… You’re right to presume that the MSM attempt to suppress most IPCC criticism, but do to the sheer volume some gets out. Here is a sampling.
IPCC’s Himalayan Glacier ‘Mistake’ No Accident
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/25/ipccs-himalayan-glacier-mistake-no-accident
Can the IPCC’s 2007 report stink any higher?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_ipcc_scandals_yet_another_coverup
The UN’s climate change panel is reeling from a series of scandals about unsupported claims in its 2007 report.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20010
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
May 18, 2010, 12:53 pmhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
Dougster:
Waldowhateverwhoeverwhocares? – says
“Oh yes, I’ve been doing this very thing for several months now at CS. And no, these so called “myriad scandals” exist almost exclusively on blogs or in questionable media sources – the deniosphere, in other words.”
Now you know that is not true – the “questioning media” is up for a showdown – the “unquestioning media” wants the status quo. And how typically puerile is the reference to the “denisphere”. The alarmists just do not get it do they?
Have a guess who the sharks of the media will turn on when they scent blood?
It is only a matter of time.
But it won’t be pretty – rats leaving sinking ships is never an edifying sight.
May 18, 2010, 1:21 pmWaldocaresthatswho:
***”Between your endless logical fallacies, personal attacks and out right sloppiness with the English language I find it surprising you have mental capacity to get out of bed and turn on a computer, much less actually use it.”
And I’m the one who sounds upset, is illogical, and hurling personal attacks? I’ve said it before Wally, whenever I get this level of diction from you (which is not your usual persona) I know I’ve touched a nerve.
For my own part, I never get upset about anything posted on CS. At least not yet. I figure it’s a matter of my cool logic vs. your excitable bias (a little humor, son, don’t twist your knickers).
In all seriousness though, I do think you are a personality type and you probably do fit into a political demographic (and your comments sometimes accidentally betray this.
These personal affronts are getting tiring, however. The thread is dead. Long live the thread!
May 18, 2010, 3:10 pmWally:
Oh waldo,
“And I’m the one who sounds upset, is illogical, and hurling personal attacks? I’ve said it before Wally, whenever I get this level of diction from you (which is not your usual persona) I know I’ve touched a nerve.”
Ah yes, you think you’ve touch a nerve…. Just letting you know just what kind of behavior you’re engaging in and how other perceive you because of that behavior. Meaning, yes, you act like fool, people will think you’re a fool.
There reaches a certain point in arguing with fools that you might as well just stop acting as if their goal is have a logical and civil discussion. So, I’m poking you and watching your pathetic comebacks because I don’t have anything better to do today.
“In all seriousness though, I do think you are a personality type and you probably do fit into a political demographic (and your comments sometimes accidentally betray this.”
WOW, I have a personality type? What types of personalities are their exactly? So I assume you have some sort of higher degree in psychology that would allow you speak to such matters, as well? And I probably fit into a political demographic? Probably? Into any kind of political demographic? Way to go out on a limb Waldo…
Other than the information I’ve freely given you, I doubt you’d guess my demographic information at anything better than a random rate. Assuming of course, that I wasn’t lying about some of those above. Though since you have such a profound insight into my “personality type” and demographic, you should be able to pick those up. So by all means, try and guess. This should be fun! Lets watch Waldo tell me everything I need to know about myself. I know you want to. You’ve already tried a few times…
May 18, 2010, 4:21 pmShills:
Dougster,
for 1). Hmm. not sure if your interpretations shared by most. Where are you reading up on these revelations?
for 2). Cute, Doug. But I think you miss the point of peer-review. Is this your imagined future of science and learning? Something like wikipedia? You should see what wiki has to say ’bout AGW (don’t bring up the wiki’s hijacked by an alarmist crap).
Wally:
you say: ‘Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.’
Pff. Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial.
You say: ‘Ok, so you’re just spewing hot air.
No worse than all these denier bloggers, so lacking in published peer-reviewed. But at least I’m on the winning side.
You say: ‘Most people know cancer is the biggest killer of old people, or cardiovascular diseases over all, or lung cancer is the largest “preventable” killer, etc’
I doubt they would know all that.
You say: ‘if your argument relies on a fact of some kind (and basically all arguments do), you have prove the fact is actually true, otherwise your entire argument is invalid.’
Not if its common knowledge or self evident in the given field.
May 18, 2010, 5:23 pmWally:
Shills,
>you say: ‘Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.’
Pff. Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial. You say: ‘Most people know cancer is the biggest killer of old people, or cardiovascular diseases over all, or lung cancer is the largest “preventable” killer, etc’
I doubt they would know all that.<
Ah, so you'd want me to reference it? Hmm, well you should hold yourself to your own standards, hypocrite.
"Not if its common knowledge or self evident in the given field."
False. Logically, you have to prove every step of your argument. You can make an argument claiming something to be true, and your argument can be valid under the assumption that it is true. But a critic can argue that because that "fact" is not actually true, your entire argument is false. At which point you have to demonstrate the truth of your assumption. You can not just lean back on supposed common knowledge, if it is called into question. If you fail to demonstrate the truth of your assumption, no matter how trivial you believe that knowledge to be, the criticism stands and you've lost the argument. You are of course free to think differently in your own head and not rationally respond to criticisms, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument has been defeated.
Ie. I could argue:
All birds have wings.
All animals that have wings can fly.
Chickens have wings.
Thus, chickens can fly.
This is a logically valid argument, but it relies on a false premise, and is thus not true. All animals that have wings CANNOT fly. Effectively you're telling us that because "All animals that have wings can fly" is common knowledge, you don't have to prove it, and so your argument is still true. That is not a logical response to a criticism doubting the TRUTH of your argument. You have to be able to prove it, whether you believe something is common knowledge or not.
May 19, 2010, 10:45 amWally:
Shills,
>you say: ‘Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.’
Pff. Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial. <
Public perception is tipping, and has been for a several years now. I don't think you're actually arguing about public perception. Or if you are, you are arguing from a position of ignorance: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx.
The link clearly shows the shifting public perception of the impact of climate change. 48% of people now believe the effects of climate change have been exaggerated, compared to 30% in 2000. Further that 48% likely makes up the majority, as you typically see more than 2% responding something to the effect of "I don't know." Further now 67% of people do not believe climate change will have serious effects during their lifetime. Also, the populous is split 50-46 split in responding the last century of warming is due to man vs. natural changes, respectively. That's down from 61-33 in 2003. And finally the populous is split 52-36-10 for most scientists believe global warming is occurring, most scientists are unsure if global warming is occurring and most scientists believe global warming is NOT occurring, and again respectively. Which is way down from just 2 years ago where it was 67-26-7.
As you can see public opinion is shifting very rapidly. And now a majority of people believe they will not see effects of global warming in their lifetime. Which is the result I'm most concerned with. Most reasonable people will agree warming has taken place, further they will agree man has impacted that warming to at least some extent. Also, man's activities are likely to cause the Earth to be at least somewhat warmer than it otherwise would be from natural forces in the future. What people are beginning to realize however, is that the extent of this warming and its effect has been greatly overstated.
So if this is the "facts" you're relying on to believe the public debate is not even, well, you're wrong.
Now that we've established this. How much does it really matter? I suppose it matters come election time. But again, I'd hope that our elected officials would be able to step away from doing the bidding of the mob and fairly evaluate the science and the need to respond in kind. So, again, I'd argue public perception is still not as important as getting the right answer.
"No worse than all these denier bloggers, so lacking in published peer-reviewed. But at least I’m on the winning side. "
What exactly makes you think you've won something?
May 19, 2010, 10:56 amWally:
Sorry for the double post, seems the page didn’t like the first part of my response. I trust you can figure it out shills.
May 19, 2010, 10:56 amWally:
Oh and the third line to my argument should be.
Chickens are birds. (and I suppose technically I need to state that birds are animals)
Or you could just take out the first premise.
I kinda changed my mind on the structure of my example half way through and didn’t fix it. Apologies.
May 19, 2010, 11:00 amShills:
Wally,
You say: ‘So if this is the “facts” you’re relying on to believe the public debate is not even, well, you’re wrong.’
I didn’t say the public debate was not even. I’m talking about the scientific debate being misconstrued by blogs and media which effect public perception, so that the public think it is even, when it is not.
I’m not gonna waist time linking you to evidence of this generally one sided debate. I still suspect you are being disingenuously pedantic. You can call all this hot air if you like, but I don’t really care. Maybe I would if I felt it was needed here, but really the science of AGW is still appears to be standing strong. Deniers and skeptics are still just waisting their time writing blogs or books, whilst pop. science publications and even an undergrad. lecture on experimental methodology I went to uses climate skeptics as examples of deniers.
That is kinda what I mean by ‘winning side’.
May 19, 2010, 8:41 pmWaldaddy:
****”Lets watch Waldo tell me everything I need to know about myself.”
Oh Golly, this should be fun. Well, where to start…
You’re anal.
May 19, 2010, 10:18 pmYou’re an angry man.
You cannot stand people who disagree with you.
You are being disingenuously pedantic much of the time but I doubt that this tactic is accomplishing what you want it to.
You are wrong when you consider your opinion is equal to that of professional climate scientists.
You eat too much red meat.
You are a biochemist (or claim to be) who is willing to follow the brief, itinerant posts of a parks manager rather than the scientists charged by many nations to observe and analyze the climate. Which is strange…
You make the mistake of thinking that I am here to change your mind.
You watch too much TV and could use more exercise (but who couldn’t, right?).
You have apparently been goaded into becoming a troll yourself, which was unintentional…
You do not see many of exactly the same qualities in yourself that you denounce in others…which is very interesting…
You are willing to carry on a pointless conversation long after it serves any useful purpose, and now I am doing the same thing…
Wally:
Shills,
You’ve now resorted to presenting a moving target.
“I didn’t say the public debate was not even. I’m talking about the scientific debate”
This is in stark contrast to your previous statement:
“Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial.”
Which was of course in responce to my comments about why it is improper to “weigh” the scientific debate by numbers of “believers.” In science the quality of data and analysis matter. Not the opinions of the scientists themselves. Many a unpopular thoeries in the sciences have come to be accepted.
So you need to pick what your actually talking about. Is the “public perception” or is it the actual science? If its the former, all we need are polls. If its the ladder, we need to attempt to objectively evaluate all the data and analysis ourselves. The strength of a scientific thoery is not shown through polls, even of scientists.
“I’m not gonna waist time linking you to evidence of this generally one sided debate. ”
Oh of course. Your side of the argument is free of the need to prove itself….
“I still suspect you are being disingenuously pedantic.”
Oh you SUSPECT…Gosh, we all can suspect what ever we want, the trick is proving it.
“You can call all this hot air if you like, but I don’t really care.”
Obviously not, as you continue to spew it.
“Deniers and skeptics are still just waisting their time writing blogs or books, whilst pop. science publications and even an undergrad. lecture on experimental methodology I went to uses climate skeptics as examples of deniers.”
Oh wow, you went to an undergrad lecture, spewing their “beliefs”…by who exactly? That’s how you know you’ve somehow “won?” Wow shills, and you call me disingenuous.
May 20, 2010, 8:56 amWally:
Waldo,
You know what that was fun reading what you think about me, I can’t help it, lets go through them.
>You’re anal.You’re an angry man.You cannot stand people who disagree with you.You are being disingenuously pedantic much of the time but I doubt that this tactic is accomplishing what you want it to.You are wrong when you consider your opinion is equal to that of professional climate scientists.You eat too much red meat.You are a biochemist (or claim to be) who is willing to follow the brief, itinerant posts of a parks manager rather than the scientists charged by many nations to observe and analyze the climate. Which is strange…You make the mistake of thinking that I am here to change your mind.You watch too much TV and could use more exercise (but who couldn’t, right?).You have apparently been goaded into becoming a troll yourself, which was unintentional…You do not see many of exactly the same qualities in yourself that you denounce in others…which is very interesting…You are willing to carry on a pointless conversation long after it serves any useful purpose, and now I am doing the same thing…<
HAHA, oh this is fun. I've NEVER seen a post of your that has any purpose what so ever, out side attempting irritate people. Like you said, you're not here to change minds…
Anyway, seeing just what you think you know about me has been…educational…And like I mentioned before, I think this list speaks more about yourself than about me.
I think we should meet waldo. It think we could use a little face to face interaction.
May 20, 2010, 9:16 amWally:
Waldo,
You know what that was fun reading what you think about me, I can’t help it, lets go through them.
“You’re anal.”
HAHA, that’s the first time anyone’s ever said that about me, and I usually here just the opposite actually.
“You’re an angry man.”
Also the first time I’ve heard that.
“You cannot stand people who disagree with you.”
That might be true. 1/3 so far.
“You are being disingenuously pedantic much of the time but I doubt that this tactic is accomplishing what you want it to.”
Look in the mirror son.
“You are wrong when you consider your opinion is equal to that of professional climate scientists.”
That’s not really something about me is it? That’s more about what you think. You know that whole “wrong” part.
“You eat too much red meat.”
Eh, I like a nice steak once a week, but that’s about it.
“You are a biochemist (or claim to be) who is willing to follow the brief, itinerant posts of a parks manager rather than the scientists charged by many nations to observe and analyze the climate. Which is strange…”
I’ve never said I’m a biochemist. I’m in more of a developmental genetic networks field, with a strong background in physics and engineer, which is where my modeling experience comes from.
“You make the mistake of thinking that I am here to change your mind.”
No, I’ve wondered what your motivation is. And if its not to attempt to change minds, the only other logical option is that you’re here to incite or to put in terms you would understand, to troll.
“You watch too much TV and could use more exercise (but who couldn’t, right?).”
HAHAHA, oh you should really meet me. MORE exercise? my wife compains about how much I exercise. I think you’re projecting yourself on to me quite a lot through this list. Are you sure you’re not the fat fool that needs to stop watching so much TV?
“You have apparently been goaded into becoming a troll yourself, which was unintentional…”
I’m only a troll for you Waldo, but its nice to see you imply you’re also a troll.
“You do not see many of exactly the same qualities in yourself that you denounce in others…which is very interesting…”
Back at ya!
“You are willing to carry on a pointless conversation long after it serves any useful purpose, and now I am doing the same thing…”
HAHA, oh this is fun. I’ve NEVER seen a post of your that has any purpose what so ever, out side attempting irritate people. Like you said, you’re not here to change minds…
Anyway, seeing just what you think you know about me has been…educational…And like I mentioned before, I think this list speaks more about yourself than about me.
I think we should meet waldo. It think we could use a little face to face interaction.
May 20, 2010, 9:18 amWaldahaha:
****”I think we should meet waldo. It think we could use a little face to face interaction.”
Well, next time you’re in the cold northern U.S., look me up.
And I didn’t actually expect you to respond to that – pretty funny there. But again, this is pointless.
Cheers.
May 20, 2010, 10:34 amWally:
Waldo,
“And I didn’t actually expect you to respond to that – pretty funny there. But again, this is pointless.”
No shit. Like Gandhi said, “Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.”
May 20, 2010, 12:00 pmShills:
Wally,
You say: ‘So you need to pick what your actually talking about.’
those quotes of mine are not contradictory, if that’s what you’re implying. My point has not changed at all, you need to read it more carefully or something. Or I could draw you a diagram.
Read may 19 again.
you say; ‘Oh of course. Your side of the argument is free of the need to prove itself…’
Where was Meyer’s reference list again??
You say: ‘That’s how you know you’ve somehow “won?” Wow shills, and you call me disingenuous.’
You left out the robustness of the IPCC reports and science there. They certainly put us on the winning side.
May 20, 2010, 5:02 pmWaldate:
****”my wife compains about how much I exercise”
Pole dancing?
May 20, 2010, 6:06 pmWally:
Waldo,
That took you way too long…
Shills,
Its, uh, interesting(?) that you think I need to read more carefully. Maybe you need to think and then type more carefully?
Then, I don’t even know where to begin with someone that claims the IPCC reports are “robust.” I mean that’s a joke right?
May 20, 2010, 7:01 pmWaldlate:
***”That took you way too long…”
Granted. But you gotta admit, even though I have no idea what you look like, it’s a pretty funny picture.
May 20, 2010, 7:55 pmShills:
Wally,
You say: ‘Its, uh, interesting(?) that you think I need to read more carefully. Maybe you need to think and then type more carefully?’
Nope, pretty sure you need to read more carefully.
You say: ‘I mean that’s a joke right?’
Not as funny as all those old denier web logs, giddy with excitement over the imminent crash of AGW following climategate, which has yet to happen.
May 20, 2010, 8:58 pmADiff:
Now here’s what I think’s a very telling comment, one that makes very clear the accuracy of claims DAGW advocates aren’t particularly interested in science, which pursues correctness regardless of source, but rather in political or ideological agendas:
“You left out the robustness of the IPCC reports and science there. They certainly put us on the winning side.”
That comment could only come from the perspective of such an agenda and reveals a fundamentally anti-Scientific point of view on the question.
May 21, 2010, 12:04 pmwAlDiff:
***”the perspective of such an agenda and reveals a fundamentally anti-Scientific point of view”
This is exactly the sort of comment that starts one of our circular conversations – but I have to ask: in what way is the IPCC not “robust,” ADiff?
You may disagree with the science, I suppose, if you have enough of an understanding and some sort of viable science of your own (has anyone on this site done any first-hand research on the subject?), but whatever its other faults, the IPCC has done wide and thorough research, 1,000s of pages – and yes, a couple of the sources are none peer-reviewed (although used in a manner not inconsistent with their own guidelines) and yes, the IPCC transposed some numbers on when the glaciers will melt yadda yadda. Yet I am unaware of anyone able to knock them off their pedestal despite skeptics’ best efforts.
Furthermore, don’t you think that’s a little bit of hyperbole there, ADiff? That’s kind of a wild assertion from a guy who ostensibly claims objectivity.
As a critic of the critics, or a skeptic of the skeptics, ADiff’s statement betrays the mindset of someone with their own pretty vehement ideological agenda.
May 21, 2010, 4:17 pmShills:
ADiff,
If you are referring to my use of the word ‘winning’, don’t worry, this is not a formal scientific forum. I merely mean ‘mainstream’.
May 21, 2010, 5:03 pmADiff:
There’ve been numerous discussions here and in other media criticizing the work of the IPCC, on every basis from inclusions of non-scientific findings as if on a par with scientific work, with purges of contributors on the basis of circling the PC wagons to exclude dissenting views, of potential conflicts of interest on the part of executive staff, of sampling bias in interest of producing a desired output, of treating contentious reports as if no dispute existed…and so on. All this is very visible on the web, in blogs, in scientific publications, NGO policy reviews, periodical articles, books, &etc. There’s no need to redundantly regurgitate common knowledge. But even more to the point, on top of the controversy surrounding its reports, is the media’s consistent focus on only the ‘worst case’ and most dramatically catastrophic from any range of predictions. If the IPCC says something like “the range of X is predicted to be from 1 to 1000, then it’s absolutely certain the press will release articles saying “X predicted to be 1000″, without mentioning that upper range prediction has a very low probability attached, too. DAGW advocates take this press as gospel and confuse it with even the flawed reports of IPCC, which even though flawed are actually far less alarmists than the MSM would have it.
Wanting to base policy on sound proven evidence isn’t ideology. Science is supposed to be indifferent to policy. But it seems with respect to DAGW some scientists have completely lost all the indifference so valuable to the pursuit of truth, and pursue science in service to the ‘Truth’ of an ideology….how much more so the various already ideological followers who take up their perception of the results in the effort to further their policy agendas? Very much more so, it seems.
Ideology belongs (when it belongs at all) in the area of policy, properly. But not at all in science. Oppenheimer (very pompously, IMO) said “Physicists have known Sin”, and now, with the disclosures of Climategate and the many questionable results justified in the interests of policy ends, the ‘Climate Scientists’ know Vice, too. Ah! But it’s really nothing new, and wasn’t in the 1940′s either. DAGW is just our generation’s version of Eugenics, and no doubt it’ll end up really ‘improving the race’, atlthough I doubt history will be as kind to today’s DAGW advocates as Time and Newsweek are to them today…..My guess is that depending on the degree the infatuation reaches, they’ll be considered somewhere along the continuum between Franz Josef Gall and Josef Mengele, hopefully (for all our sakes) rather more toward the former than the latter (which should be the case their license to dictate action being sufficiently constrained!)
May 21, 2010, 5:22 pmADiff:
Shills, A generation prior to Louis Pasteur, a doctor in Vienna decided that cleanliness and preventing contamination of wounds &etc would benefit patients, especially in child delivery. He instituted a rigorous cleanliness protocol which had the effect of drastically reducing mortality rates. The medical scientists and medical practitioners of the time generally resented his program, believed it wrong, especially as it was contrary to almost all the consensus science at the time, and resented him (his family was Jewish)… They stood firmly on their consensus Science, and the general acceptance of its models and theories, and ignored the observational results that made the only (and best) case for this approach that contradicted the conventional wisdom of the experts. After his demise (he was a discredited and broken man long before his actual death) they undid his program, and returned to operations to the almost universally agreed view of the sources of infection and sickness…miasmic vapors. Mortality returned to previous levels. In a word: they ‘won’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
It wasn’t ‘science’ then. And it isn’t now. It’s about politics, ideology, self-aggrandizement, and the pervasive narcissism of Western academia (and our technocratic elites, in general).
If it’s can be about “us” and about “winning”, then it certainly isn’t about the Science.
May 21, 2010, 5:47 pmShills:
ADiff,
The IPCC science still holds up. Where are the fatal mistakes?
You deniers all love your allusions in analogies of eugenics and victorian era science to AGW. But, as so many of you insist on saying, wouldn’t it be best to just look at the science? No ideology, no politics and no lame historical analogies?
If your point is simply that consensus doesn’t nec. equal truth, then I hear you loud and clear.
May 21, 2010, 7:18 pmWally:
Shills,
“The IPCC science still holds up. Where are the fatal mistakes?”
I guess you don’t care for others relying on facts they believe to be common knowledge, and thus not providing references for them, in their arguments either?
What shock!
May 22, 2010, 9:20 amWally:
Shills,
“The IPCC science still holds up. Where are the fatal mistakes?”
I guess you don’t care for others relying on facts they believe to be common knowledge, and thus not providing references for them, in their arguments either?
What shock!
“No ideology, no politics and no lame historical analogies? ”
How’d that quote go? “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Historical analogies can be very valuable leasons for current issues. To just brush off a possibly valid analogy as “lame” is nothing more than appeal to ridicule.
May 22, 2010, 9:27 amShills:
Wally,
You say: ‘I guess you don’t care for others relying on facts they believe to be common knowledge, and thus not providing references for them, in their arguments either?’
If such facts existed I think the media would be all over it. And, for sure, Meyer would be typing furiously on his blog about it; not happening.
Anyway, fair enough if you think it is common knowledge. But I’m just gonna wait for the collapse of the IPCC and climate science which must surely ensue.
you say: ‘To just brush off a possibly valid analogy as “lame” is nothing more than appeal to ridicule.’
Well fine if some of you deniers think historical analogues work nicely to supplement your lacking peer-reviewed science then be my guess. But Wally, I have to ask, do you guys have any confidence intervals on those analogues?
May 22, 2010, 6:37 pmWaldoPot&Kettle:
I have noticed that we are all too tired to re-post our findings from previous conversations and thus we are all posting in generalities, which is fine, we’ve all been around this block a time or two, and that we are now rehashing the same old arguments…
Nevertheless, ADiff:
****”There’ve been numerous discussions here and in other media criticizing the work of the IPCC”
Yes, and I’m going to suggest that these criticisms have revolved around numerous inaccuracies (such as the argument that the IPCC does not make its data or programs available – which is demonstrably false and has been demonstrated as such; or that the work is unrepeatable – again, demonstrably false and has been demonstrated as such, and so on). Therefore the majority of these criticism should be discarded as spurious.
****”on every basis from inclusions of non-scientific findings as if on a par with scientific work”
Again, this is inaccurate. In the midst of thousands of peer-reviewed articles, a few newspaper reports have appeared which cover then current issues (such as wildfires or flood insurance rates) which are the kinds of things which shouldn’t need peer-review and only the pedantry of the deniosphere finds significant. In other cases the IPCC relied on reports from expert sources which themselves were not peer-reviewed but, upon inspection, were clearly based on peer-reviewed sources which were then truncated for presentation. It is extremely disingenuous to post that non-scientific findings were used in any other way than were dictated in the IPCC’s own guidelines (which were posted some time ago on another thread – it’s there for all to see or can be found with relative ease on Google).
****”with purges of contributors on the basis of circling the PC wagons to exclude dissenting views”
Never seen this. And I don’t think this is true. The CRU emails (where this argument usually circles back to) prove absolutely nothing and have been the focus of official probes which cleared the scientists. “PC” is generally the fallback of the deniosphere when it does not like what it hears – again, this is disingenuous, because it is not the scientists raising the PC cudgel, it is you, ADiff.
*****”of potential conflicts of interest on the part of executive staff, of sampling bias in interest of producing a desired output, of treating contentious reports as if no dispute existed…and so on. All this is very visible on the web, in blogs, in scientific publications, NGO policy reviews, periodical articles, books, &etc.”
Not really. Repeatedly we’ve looked at these sources (C3 was the latest) only to find spin-doctors, amateurs, and plain old misinformation at work.
****”There’s no need to redundantly regurgitate common knowledge.”
But common knowledge is repeatedly distorted here, my friend.
****”the media’s consistent focus on only the ‘worst case’ and most dramatically catastrophic from any range of predictions.”
Well, two things: 1) be fair, the media also leaps on any chance to embarrass climate scientists (this blog would be in sad shape if it didn’t) and 2) if your problem is with the media, fine, you’re not alone, but leave the actual science and scientists out of it.
****”DAGW advocates take this press as gospel and confuse it with even the flawed reports of IPCC”
Again, be fair. If we take this proposition as true, and I would agree it is true, the DAGW deniers take any press coverage that embarrasses or challenges AGW science and the scientists as their own form of gospel. As I’ve said before, CS would be a very empty, boring place without the tabloid press.
****”Wanting to base policy on sound proven evidence isn’t ideology. Science is supposed to be indifferent to policy.”
Sooooo…are you suggesting CS is indifferent to ideology and policy? Pot meet kettle.
****”But it seems with respect to DAGW some scientists have completely lost all the indifference so valuable to the pursuit of truth”
Even if this is true (and there’s not much evidence that it is), pot meet kettle, ADiff. But this is really more of the sort of ad hom attacks which characterize the deniosphere. And we all know how the people here feel about ad hom and personal attacks on character, right fellas? It is simply very ironic that you are so concerned with it here yet do not see this in yourself.
*****”DAGW is just our generation’s version of Eugenics, and no doubt it’ll end up really ‘improving the race’”
This is perhaps the worse analog I’ve heard. The only purpose for this comparison is its emotional incitement. Who was mixing ideology, science and policy, ADiff? Haven’t there been discussions of propaganda on this blog? Hmmmmmm…
Pot. Meet. Kettle.
May 23, 2010, 11:49 amWally:
Shills,
“Anyway, fair enough if you think it is common knowledge. But I’m just gonna wait for the collapse of the IPCC and climate science which must surely ensue.”
Whoa! Who’s claiming he collapse of the IPCC or climate science in general will, or should, come of any of this?
Though it is nice to see that you may now understand the idiocy of hiding behind “common knowledge.”
“Well fine if some of you deniers think historical analogues work nicely to supplement your lacking peer-reviewed science then be my guess. But Wally, I have to ask, do you guys have any confidence intervals on those analogues?”
Oh shills, come now, we all (should) know CI can only be applied to numerical data. What mean are we dealing with here exactly?
I supposed lessons from history could be turned into numerical data if we tried (for example, gather every possible break through in science and determine how often the “consensus” was wrong about it, and I’d guess this number approaches 100%), but surely no right minded individual would believe we could put a CI around one analogy.
May 23, 2010, 1:14 pmWaldill:
****”determine how often the “consensus” was wrong about it, and I’d guess this number approaches 100%”
Hmmmm…so all scientific breakthroughs come from a single avant-garde scientist? Okay. Darwin: Evolution. Becquerel: x-Rays. Einstein: Manhattan Project. Hansen: Global Climate Change.
But no, we’d rather Hansen be the bad guy. Okay, so who is this breakthrough individual who has conclusively proven AGW false? Lindzen? Pielke? Or have they failed to make a convincing case yet…
May 23, 2010, 1:24 pmShills:
Wally,
‘Whoa! Who’s claiming he collapse of the IPCC or climate science in general will, or should, come of any of this?’
Yeah, I don’t mean climate science in general, I mean the AGW science. If the things ADiff said are true then the IPCC and the science would be discredited, and a fair number of peeps will lose careers, or reputations, over it.
You say: ‘Though it is nice to see that you may now understand the idiocy of hiding behind “common knowledge.”’
I only hope that you grow out of hiding behind pedantic questions.
YOu say: ‘Oh shills, come now, we all (should) know CI can only be applied to numerical data. What mean are we dealing with here exactly?’
Lol. This was meant to be a snide joke. See, Many many months ago you asked me to give data to back up the proposition that a consensus-held belief was more likely to be correct then a minority belief. Very similar question.
Hard task quantifying such things isn’t it?
Maybe we should just forget about history and put the focus on getting some good solid skeptic science out there, no?
May 23, 2010, 5:34 pmADiff:
Eugenics was accepted as “Consensus Science” for the better part of two generations before being revealed as the ideological collusion it actually was. It’s a vast mistake to think the truth will prevail as rapidly and clearly as some seem to assume. Even for decades after its utter discredit laws were enforced in the United States pursuing eugenic ends that resulted in wrongful incarceration, sterilization and ‘neglectful elimination’ of thousands of American citizens. A paradigm that serves the desires of self-appointed intellectual elites for self-aggrandizement and simultaneously provides government and corporate institutions opportunities for self-enrichment will not quickly disappear, even in the face of obvious falsifications. The ability of people to see what they WANT to see should not be under-estimated.
May 24, 2010, 11:56 amADiff:
As warming becomes more and more obviously consistent with unexceptional variation, and not the Emergency, Unprecedented crisis the hysteria purports, commitments will of course be limited by pragmatism, but the hysteria and ideology of this latest ‘Scientific’ messianism will persist and mutate. Even though Greenland’s icecap doesn’t slide into the sea (or even shrink appreciably), hurricanes don’t multiply and lay waste both coasts, droughts don’t crush the entire northern hemisphere, the ice caps don’t disappear…fears will not disappear either and neither will those who will profit from hysteria where ever it can be found. DAGW really isn’t anything new in this sense, just the latest opportunity for would-be saviors to flex their god-like intellectual muscles…and others to profit thereby.
May 24, 2010, 12:15 pmWally:
Shills,
If I remember correctly you (or someone else was when you forced your way into the conversation) was arguing that it is logical to go with the consensus in the absence of doing any thinking for yourself. If you’re going to make that argument, you at least need to demonstrate that the consensus is more likely to be right than wrong. Yes, its a difficult thing to answer, but just because its hard doesn’t get you off the hook.
Now in this situation we’re dealing with a singular analogy (well now its two). I don’t think anyone is arguing that DAGW is exactly like eugenics or basic sterile technique, but simply pointing out that the consensus is often wrong. Thus, it is not logical to blindly believe the consensus without further data. Which brings us right back to the issue above. Either you have prove the consensus is actually more likely to be right than wrong, and hopefully at a significantly better rate, or you need to deal with the subject matter specifically (including all data collection and analysis methods, as well as the logic behind drawing conclusion from that data), which you generally don’t do.
May 24, 2010, 12:37 pmWaldowild:
****”you need to deal with the subject matter specifically”
And you, Wally, are steadfastly ignoring the third and forth parts of your equation of data + ‘thinking for yourself,’ which are ‘do you know what the hell you are talking about?’ and ‘how the hell do you know that you are not being lied to?’
I happily concede that you have a background in physics and engineering and now work in genetics, and like all but a very few outspoken critics of AGW, you are not an expert in the field, do not actually work in the field, and don’t apparently go to the vast amounts of data generated by the actual scientists who work in the field but take your information from CS or places like it.
So, the proof of consensus argument seems like a red herring to me. Isn’t there a consensus that smoking causes cancer, that uranium can be used to make atomic bombs, that alcohol is bad for unborn children, etc., etc., etc. And yes, there is plenty of evidence for GCC, AGW or even DAGW – but it is very seldom dealt with on this blog (Mr. Meyer’s post up-top is a plaint about a magazine article in which the deniosphere gets a dose of its own medicine; the next post is about lawyers and flood claims which somehow equates to Al Gore’s movie; the next post is a 100 word-ish summary of Monkton at Heartland [unbiased sources there!]; after that is a cross-posting from another blog; after that, an excerpt from USA Today about lion warning calls which also somehow relates to AL Gore; and finally a picture of a park which Mr. Meyer oversees). So please, Wally, if you are claim to be dealing independently with “the data” and thinking for yourself, what are you doing here?
And then there is ADiff who posts such flowery unsupported hyperbole as “just the latest opportunity for would-be saviors to flex their god-like intellectual muscles…and others to profit thereby” and yet the critical thinkers here seem to give a pass this sort of excited rhetoric.
May 24, 2010, 6:06 pmShills:
Wally,
Suffice to say that it is too silly to try prove conclusively either claim.
We’d agree that the science is the most important factor, and that the scientific consensus is only as good as the science it is based on. So, as I have been saying, it would be great if someone from the denier side would put some out there to address the many issues they have. Until that happens the current science (and the general consensus) is all we have to work off.
May 24, 2010, 6:57 pmADiff:
And yet the predicted ‘impacts’ have not come to pass and do not appear likely to do so…. So much for the ‘crisis’. Hypotheses require confirmation of their predictions for verification. On this basis DAGW is increasingly questionable, at best.
Warming is another matter altogether, but it’s no real danger. Just change as usual.
“[T]he scientist is as prone as any other to become the victim…of his prejudices. He will in defense thereof make shipwreck of both the facts of science and the methods of science…by perpetuating every form of fallacy, inaccuracy and distortion.”
– Karl Pearson
“Mankind’s quest for perfection has always turned dark…The instinct is to ‘play God’ or at least mediate his providence…Science offers the most potent weapons in man’s determination to resist the call of moral restraint.”
– Edwin Black
And there, I contend, you may well have ‘Catastrophic Global Warming’, in a nut-shell.
May 24, 2010, 11:00 pmWaldolame:
So…ummmm…that’s your argument, ADiff? You can’t even give us one solid example of how “DAGW is increasingly questionable, at best” or which “impacts” have not come to pass? And why am I not surprised that one of these quotes comes from a guy who died in 1936 and a guy who wrote about Eugenics? Are you going to dredge up Hitler next, ADiff? Or maybe the TV executives who canceled FireFly?
Lame.
May 24, 2010, 11:18 pmADiff:
I’ve provided numerous citations and references. For those with an immediate interest, simply peruse “Climate of Extremes”, perhaps the most notable current work in print. It’s references to scientific publications and studies for all this number in the hundreds, and not from questionable, fringe or marginal sources either.
Only Trolls repeated plea for references and citations when these have been provided again and again. It is only one form of Troll-ish rhetoric, among many, to continuously do so in face of the same being provided again, and again, and again.
Some see need to ridicule because they cannot dignify and have no real answers to very troubling questions. But mostly it’s just Trolling, plain and simple.
Take a look at the referenced material and then get back to us. In the meantime, like they say: read ‘em and weep.
May 24, 2010, 11:25 pmADiff:
Read Edwin Black’s most recent work (the one on Eugenics). It’s entitled “War Against the Weak”. There are remarkable parallels with the current Global Warming Hysteria, beyond question. Of course no two phenomenon are identical, but the similarities and parallels are striking. Of especial note to me is the essential consistency of the Eugenics movement with the modern Environmental ‘movement’ in respect to their shared fundamental racism.
May 24, 2010, 11:31 pmADiff:
Eugenics was fundamentally a war against the poor, and most especially, against other ‘races’. How little has changed! http://www.fightingmalaria.org/
The modern Environmental ‘movement’ can be viewed as a continuation of that war against the ‘poor’…and guess what? Mostly it amounts to a war against black and brown people. Imagine that! In the end it’s really all about ‘themselves’, isn’t it?
Color me so NOT surprised.
May 24, 2010, 11:36 pmWally:
Waldo, not working in a particular field does not mean I’m totally ignorant of the field, nor that I can’t understand it. You like to repeat these questions, implying we have no idea what where talking about, but its nothing more than an ad hominem attack. You might as well stop, no one cares about such BS.
Shills,
Peer reviewed papers skeptical of DAGW are easy to find and have been provided by Meyer and in the comments section. I think ADiff and myself are getting tired of repeatedly posting them. At some point we just have to recignize that some people are going to be disingenous and ignore evidence that works against their personal biases. So its now up to you. You can find those papers, I tired of wasting my time giving them to you when you’ve proven time and time again you will ignore them, attack the authors or journal and not the science, or fail to understand the science.
May 25, 2010, 8:01 amWaldahoooooooo!:
****”not working in a particular field does not mean I’m totally ignorant of the field, nor that I can’t understand it”
Never actually said that. I have no doubt that you have a good understanding of the theories etc. But I cannot see how you put yourself on a par with the actual climate scientists, however, which is what you are doing, at least in practice. I am only suggesting that you should perhaps listen to those people who are actually professional scientists in the field – even you must concede they are better informed and in a better position to judge the science.
ADiff, I will order the book from the library today. I have a great deal of reading and writing to do this summer, but I will take a look at it. Are you interested in a recommendation from me?
May 25, 2010, 9:56 amADiff:
I’ve read several of the more popular titles among the alarmist category…but am always willing to entertain suggestions. I certainly don’t mind at all entertaining differences of opinion. Prejudice is unavoidable but awareness mitigates its influence. Recommend away without hesitation.
The 1st rule IMO is simply “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, the so-called “Sagan’s Law”.
May 25, 2010, 10:34 amADiff:
BTW, whatever your take on Climate Change, I suspect you’ll find “War Against the Weak” a fascinating tale. I think my analogy apt, but even those who do not at all should find a lot of ‘meat’ there to chew on.
One trivial example: the word “moron” which is bandied about so much, and so taken for granted, was entirely a creation of the Eugenics movement, and created for political propaganda purposes. Interesting…..
How many linguistic artifacts of fanaticism find acceptance as common currency, and to what effect? I find such speculations interesting, being of a somewhat bookish inclination myself.
Anyway, DIGRESSUS EST … but feel free to suggest at will.
May 25, 2010, 10:43 amWally:
Waldo,
Oh but in asking the question in such leading manner you certainly implied it. If you don’t want people to put words in your mouth, don’t ask leading questions.
“But I cannot see how you put yourself on a par with the actual climate scientists, however, which is what you are doing, at least in practice.”
Depends on what you think “on par” means here. My ability to judge a scientific argument is likely equal to their’s. My understanding of statistics and modeling in general seems to far exceed their’s. They likely have a larger depth of knowledge in their field than I do, I would concede that. But in any given scientific argument it is not terribly difficult to read up on the relevant information. So that one advantage they have is the most trivial. Once you’ve had a strong scientific training you can apply it to anything. The details come and go, and you learn them and forget them as they do.
This is a long way of saying the tools to being a good scientist never change, but the required background knowledge in any given field changes all the time, and it is not as hard as you may believe to catch up on seemingly unrelated fields. Plus, I’ve now spent the better part of two years reading books, peer reviewed journals and yes obviously blogs on climate science. I likely know climate science only slightly worse than my own field. The only difference is I have no desire in doing primary research in climate science.
May 25, 2010, 11:54 amADiff:
“Actual climate scientists”, kind of like those “Actual MD”‘s one see’s touted in advertisements for quack nostrums and holistic hooey? Being a ‘scientist’ in itself means very little, and from what I can see being a ‘climate scientist’ amounts to nothing more than announcing one’s not a specialist in any particular real area of investigation, but certainly has an eye for ‘the main chance’ at any rate. I mean, it’s not as if there really was any such thing yet in any sense established on a coherent body of theory or research. Climate Science at this point really only exists as such in the public imagination. Beyond that it just a mish-mash without any clear integral solidity. Eventually we may understand climate enough to actually study if scientifically. But at this point the best that can be done is to study this or that component area that contributes to climate, and pursue more or less speculative investigation as to how all these ‘pieces parts’ fit together. Which brings us to science’s myopia issue. Of course scientists want, and need, the things they DO understand to be important. It’s a trap, and one ‘Climate Science’ has clearly fallen into, and badly.
May 25, 2010, 3:49 pmWally:
Very true ADiff,
May 25, 2010, 5:01 pm-
The whole of “climate science” seems like one big pilot study thus far. In general its sloppy analytically and so little of the entire process is so poorly understood it difficult to make any kind of strong conclusion.
-
In my experience climate science more closely resembles the study of economics than that of any core science. And economists still debate whether the new deal actually helped or just made the great depression worse. As I’ve said on this board before the core problem is that climate scientists can’t experiment, and without proper experiments, we’re reduced to correlations and guessing. And as anyone earning a C or better in into statistics knows, correlation is not necessarily causation. This isn’t to say we don’t know anything, or there is no hope for climate science, its just going to be very, very difficult to untangle the amorphous blob that is our climate.
Shills:
Wally,
I’m not asking you to post skeptical papers. Any that are out there have obviously been considered and incorporated into the science. In addition I can’t read or pretend to understand them. The IPCC still stands strong, as does the science behind it. What I’ve been asking for is that deniers get the ball rolling on all the non-published criticisms against AGW, otherwise the science still stands.
For example, those books that ADiff recommends could have some good ideas, but unless they are submitted for peer-review, they are useless.
May 25, 2010, 5:46 pmWaldactor:
ADiff, may I suggest “The Climate Solutions Consensus: What We Know and What to Do About it” by the NCSE, Blockstein and Wiegman.
I’m also interested in “Climate Cover-UP: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” by Hoggan, although I am willing to be suspicious of Hoggan.
And yeah, I’ll look at your book, but I’ll also be suspicious of it and its claims – will look into them when I get a chance.
So Wally,
****”it is not as hard as you may believe to catch up on seemingly unrelated fields”
This does make me wonder why people specialize at all in the sciences? Certainly we could streamline our graduate programs and scientific agencies if this were true.
And you will forgive me if I am not convinced of your rationalization for why your “ability to judge a scientific argument is likely equal to their’s.” Ummmm….doubtful for all of the obvious reasons already posted above. Pretty self-aggrandizing too.
Nor is your and ADiff’s hyperbole about “quack nostrums and holistic hooey” very convincing. This is where I think you lose the debate – your views are antagonistic and exaggerated; you can make no claim to being objective or fair-minded. (And fine if you want to begin counter-asserting that I am not fair to Mr. Meyer – I no longer am – he’s quacking like a duck for all the obvious reasons.)
May 25, 2010, 11:02 pmWally:
Shills,
“In addition I can’t read or pretend to understand them. ”
Which leaves me wondering why you’re here. If you don’t understand and don’t want to take the time to try and understand, why do you think your opinion on the matter will mean anything to people that do make that effort and likely understand the science better than you?
“The IPCC still stands strong, as does the science behind it.”
Says the guy that self admittedly say he doesn’t understand the science… So on what grounds do you form this opinion when you admit your ignorant of the science itself?
“What I’ve been asking for is that deniers get the ball rolling on all the non-published criticisms against AGW, otherwise the science still stands.”
Like I’ve said, those paper are out there. Though you then say I’m not supposed to post them and I’ve already told you several times, I’m not going to create my own. I’m just the critic you need to convince. As is the public in general, some of us are just, uh, how to put this, easier to convince than others.
“For example, those books that ADiff recommends could have some good ideas, but unless they are submitted for peer-review, they are useless.”
Peer-review journals is not the only method to disseminate scientific findings. Peer-review is really only used in the academic world.
May 26, 2010, 11:14 amADiff:
Your recommendations sound tendentious and directly addressing Climate Change and the associated political movement, but I will read them in any event in hopes they might actually have something to say I’ve not already encountered in other such works. I don’t rule that out, although I am rather skeptical, as well as you are. I will try to give them as open-minded a consideration as possible though. I’ll order them today online (I despise sales taxes).
The work I cited isn’t about Climate Change as a phenomenon or as a movement…although, in a sense, it can be viewed as being about ‘scientific’ crusades (‘movements’) in general, at least on some level. I highly recommend it entirely on its own merits regardless any application one may see, not not, applicable to the specific topic of Climate Change and its related Crusade to ‘save the world’. I believe you will enjoy it (it is very well written) and benefit from it with respect to a more informed view of some developments in history. I say this regardless agreement (or disagreement) with its contentions.
With respect to Climate Change in particular, I think you miss the point, generally. The issue isn’t climate change really, it’s whether or not it can reasonably be considered in any significant way ‘Unprecedented’ (which claim I see being largely unsupported by the evidence) or presents a significant danger or crisis of any kind, for which I see little, if any, evidence. I’ll refer you once again to “Climate of Extremes” (a reference, not a recommendation, by the way) for a cogent presentation of these arguments, not suggesting there’s no climate change, nor warming trends (including the most recent such), nor a role of GHGs in these.
May 26, 2010, 11:20 amWally:
Waldo,
“This does make me wonder why people specialize at all in the sciences? Certainly we could streamline our graduate programs and scientific agencies if this were true.”
People specialize for a variety of reasons. One is interest. Another is that while it isn’t difficult to learn the background material in any particular field, it is however, often difficult and costly to get set up to do experiments in a new field. So, once you get the knowledge and all the equipment, chemicals, drugs, protocols and train personal to use all this, its pretty easy to just keep going in that field. Recently my own lab switched to something very similar, but different enough to require a change over in lab techniques and some equipment. Conceptually the change was not difficult, but speaking practically it took about year to QC everything.
Then with graduate school about 1/2 your training is just learning how to be a good scientist and its not really about the subject matter at all. Its about how to ask good questions, how to answer them properly and how to critically evaluate your own work and that of others. If you studied hard in your undergrad, there really isn’t a ton of subject specific knowledge you’re going to have to learn. At most two years worth of classes, but classes are not the only way to learn, and in some ways they take way too long and are not an efficient use of your time. If you’re dedicated you can pick up a text book yourself and get through in a month or two, if not weeks. Now maybe I’m the exception having had a very broad undergrad with lots of math, chem, phys and bio, but if that’s true, its only because I put in more time, not because I’m some super genius.
Anyway, you then go into your typical ad hominem diatribes about how you don’t trust me, or apparently anyone else you disagree with, for what ever reasons. If you don’t believe I can make and judge scientific articles, perhaps I should put in touch with my Ph.D. committee… Regardless of your suspicions and claims self agandizing, you aren’t in a position to judge my abilities, particularly since you have shown little interest in critically evaluating scientific articles with me. So its my word or lets go through some articles, though I suspect your own knowledge and abilities are so lacking that you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the logical capacity of Albert Einstein and Paris Hilton.
May 26, 2010, 12:21 pmShills:
Wally,
You say: ‘Says the guy that self admittedly say he doesn’t understand the science…’
Fair enough question.
When the ass falls out of climate science, I suppose I’d see press releases from the IPCC and notable scientists admitting to some serious errors. I’d see blogs like realclimate explaining the mistakes in simple terms, I’d see blogs like this one getting all smug. New Scientist, Am Sci, would have big stories on it.
I think we’d know if it happens. But we should prob. be sure not to overreact to something minor, like a bunch of stolen email.
You say: ‘Like I’ve said, those paper are out there.
Well they’re not doin’ much it seems.
you say: ‘Peer-review is really only used in the academic world.’
I’d say it’s the gold standard, but sure, lets see what effect those books have.
May 26, 2010, 5:13 pmWally:
Shills,
You may consider the emails something minor, but pretty much all evidence points to the contrary. Popular opinion has shifted greatly since “climategate.” More than that we’ve seen claim after claim in our latest IPCC reports found to be based on what some hiker said, or other such claims that don’t come out of the gold standard peer review journals. We’ve had investigations that have cleared those mentioned in the climategate emails, though those investigations have not been without criticisms as well. And we now how an AG investigating one of them. The bottom has fallen out. Climate scientists know now they are being watched, carefully, and hopefully that persuades them to do better science and leave the politics out of it.
“You say: ‘Like I’ve said, those paper are out there.
Well they’re not doin’ much it seems.”
I would disagree.
“I’d say it’s the gold standard, but sure, lets see what effect those books have.”
Not really. Its just ‘A’ standard. There are alternatives (one is private publications like books), and I don’t particularly think any of them are significantly better than the others in terms of getting disseminating science. If really good science was done in a book, we’d pay attention to it. And like all things there are crappy journals that generally have crappy science, and even the good journals occasionally have crappy science that get ignored. It all depends on just who’s reviewing it and the editors, which can be good or bad. From my point of view peer review had an important advantage before the age of the internet, a relatively simple review process. However, now it would be possible to post scientific findings more or less in real time with a completely open review process (meaning anyone willing to critique it and write down their real name). Over all this would likely make science much better. More stuff would get out their faster and we’d draw from a much larger pool of reviewers, so not to give a few big shots in a particular field too much influence. And it would take away the ‘prestige’ factor, that would probably serve science some good. However, now that peer review is entrenched its going to take a pretty large activation energy to get open review going. A few journals have tried it, but its proven hard to pull people away from wanting to get into the big name journals.
May 26, 2010, 6:03 pmWaldoYo:
****”particularly since you have shown little interest in critically evaluating scientific articles with me.”
Wally, I’ve tried to do this in the past. You (and the others here) either ignore my requests to read with me (I’ve made several requests on these forums) or get really furious when I do.
And understand that I do not doubt your ability within your own field (I figured you had a doctorate soon after your first post)…but, of course, I would have to defer to the climate scientists in debates about climate science, just as I would defer to your expertise if Jones or Mann or Hansen were challenging you on genetics.
And again, Wally, I don’t think that what goes on on these boards is ‘science’ in any but the most superficial sense. What goes on on these boards is the very political, very paranoid denigration of climate scientists and highly prejudiced pseudo-evaluations of the science itself based on questionable source material. Since you are yourself a scientist, I always have to wonder why the register of CS doesn’t bother you more.
May 26, 2010, 8:32 pmShills:
Wally,
The emails were minor in the sense that they suggested very little of the supposed corruption. Of course our response was major — over-reacting.
What is the AG investigation?
Those paper’s out there. What are they doing?
You say: ‘ I don’t particularly think any of them are significantly better than the others in terms of getting disseminating science’
disseminating science maybe, but what about quality control??
I remember back in year 9 or 10 reading this new book by Gavin Menzies called 1421: The year China Discovered the World. I was quite the Chinese History buff at the time, However, I had not yet learnt how to think critically and took the book as been tip top. One day I wen’t to the local uni to do some research on the topic, only to have the librarian, also a lecturer in history, tell me Gavin was full o’ crap, totally unsupported in the field.
I’m not saying peer-review is perfect, and I’m open to new systems, but it is currently the most reliable.
May 26, 2010, 9:14 pmWally:
Shills,
“What is the AG investigation?”
Virgina’s attorney general’s (AG, sorry thought from previous discussion you’d recognize the abbreviation) investigation of Mann.
“disseminating science maybe, but what about quality control??”
That is terribly well controlled for by having just 3-5 reviews anyway. Often, 1-2 of the reviews are friends, or previous collaborators, that aren’t that critical. Plus, the ultimate test of quality is getting it out for a lot of people to read and if it can be replicated, which doesn’t happen until after the paper is published anyway.
“One day I wen’t to the local uni to do some research on the topic, only to have the librarian, also a lecturer in history, tell me Gavin was full o’ crap, totally unsupported in the field.
I’m not saying peer-review is perfect, and I’m open to new systems, but it is currently the most reliable.”
Well, if you ever become one of these experts you refer to in some particular field, you’ll learn that there is a lot of crap out there in the peer-reviewed literature as well. I can understand it may give a layperson, such as yourself, some comfort to know a handful of other experts “OKed” some particular paper, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was good science. Reviews miss things, editors don’t often require everything a reviewer asks actually be completed, and of course reviews, editors and authors can more or less be in bed with each other. In the end, I think the more familiar you are with peer-review, the more you are aware of its faults.
May 27, 2010, 9:46 amWally:
Waldo,
“You (and the others here) either ignore my requests to read with me (I’ve made several requests on these forums) or get really furious when I do.”
I remember trying to do this with you once and, if I recall correctly, two things happened:
1) You don’t have access to subscription required journals. So, I suggested a few papers and none of you could gain access to. Then I asked you pick, and you did not.
2) We went through one paper that was a statistical mess. It was something like 20 years old, and yes statistical methods have improved since then, and maybe more importantly, awareness of proper statistical techniques has also improved since. You and several other people seemed to think the stats done were fine, but you couldn’t communicate why outside of trusting the authors and could not answer several of my criticisms. Which lead me to believe you don’t have the required training to really keep up. Meaning you don’t have the understanding of statistics needed for the vast majority of this field’s work, nor even the scientific training required just to keep up with how you properly ask and answer questions. Though I’m open to you picking a paper, with some sort of reverence, and proving me wrong.
“just as I would defer to your expertise if Jones or Mann or Hansen were challenging you on genetics. ”
You never know who can provide a valuable critique of your work. It may be these people can offer me something I haven’t thought of. Collaboration with people outside your field is often valuable in gain some perspective, as people sometimes tend to get myopic with their own work. So I wouldn’t be afraid of their criticisms, I’d embrace them. This is why I only get suspicious of them when they act defensive with their work. Scientists are supposed to be detached from their work.
May 27, 2010, 10:52 amWaldo:
****”I suggested a few papers and none of you could gain access to. Then I asked you pick, and you did not.”
You have confused me with someone else. Neither of those were me.
I did begin reading a number of papers off the “200 peer reviewed” list someone posted and this is when a number of people became very angry. The list was a sham and at least a number of the papers did not deliver what the people here wanted delivered.
I am willing to read some stuff (was actually looking at some articles on Academic Search Premier today), time allowing. I would ask that we stick to actual peer-reviewed stuff from bona fide academic journals (Energy and the Environment or any other corporate publication should be considered off limits). Remember that I am a layperson too.
May 27, 2010, 3:41 pmWally:
Well waldo,
I’ll leave the ball in your court since its ultimately the alarmists that need to prove DAGW. So pick your favorite, or pick a few.
May 27, 2010, 5:01 pmShills:
Wally,
you say ‘…but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was good science…’
‘necessarily’ is key here.
the peer-review system is still superior to a book. You say that the ultimate point of it is to get the ideas out there for others. Well a book takes a lot longer to get published than an article, and there is still no way of sifting the wheat from the chaff.
Besides, one of the major issues the deniers had this year was some none peer-reviewed lit. in the IPCC. Clearly even they see the superiority of peer-review if they feel such a complaint is warranted. I’m willing to bet that even you, Wally, felt similar.
Could it be that you are expressing one of the characteristics of a denier: setting up impossible standards for your opponents. As explained in the very New Scientist that heads this thread???
May 27, 2010, 6:46 pmWaldomotte:
This one is kind of heavy:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_MassonDelmotte_etal.pdf
I will have to do some backtracking to locate some definitions of terminology but a good mental exercise, no?
May 27, 2010, 8:05 pmWally:
Shills,
“You say that the ultimate point of it is to get the ideas out there for others. Well a book takes a lot longer to get published than an article, and there is still no way of sifting the wheat from the chaff. ”
I’ve seen papers take 1-2 years just in the pre-publication process. In theory articles would be faster, but they often are not. And an individual who’s educated in the subject can sift the wheat from the chaff for himself. If you can’t do that, that’s your problem. Not mine.
“Besides, one of the major issues the deniers had this year was some none peer-reviewed lit. in the IPCC. Clearly even they see the superiority of peer-review if they feel such a complaint is warranted. I’m willing to bet that even you, Wally, felt similar.”
The issue isn’t just the lack of peer review, the issue is just what the data and analysis was in the studies their referenced. If I recall correctly, they were often personal accounts by hikers. No scientific process at all. The other issue was the extreme hypocrisy of the alarmist side. They liked to degrade skeptics as amateur bloggers, that double as creationists, who don’t actually do a scientific process. Well… the IPCC relied similar accounts to prove their story. Certainly they could have used non-scientific findings by amateurs that didn’t support their argument, but why didn’t they? Obviously the bar was MUCH lower for those they agreed with. They weren’t concerned with creating an honest and open summary of the science for politicians, they were trying to sell a story. And they relied on anything that would help them sell that story.
May 28, 2010, 10:47 amShills:
Wally,
you say: ‘ In theory articles would be faster, but they often are not…’
But you’d agree that a non fiction book would generally take longer.
you say: ‘and an individual who’s educated in the subject can sift the wheat from the chaff for himself.’
Undergrads cannot. And the peer-review system is specialty-specific so that researchers who aren’t focused on that topic can still use it to inform their research. There is a lot of reliance on trust in science, otherwise a lot of time would be wasted if they all had to sift the wheat from the chaff.
YOu say: ‘If I recall correctly, they were often personal accounts by hikers’
I don’t think one of those exists, and if they do, they prob. are reasonable.
you say: ‘the IPCC relied similar accounts to prove their story’
BS. The vast majority of AGW science is peer-reviewed. Have there been any errors in the wg1; the central science behind AGW? No. All the errors have usually been in the wg2 or 3 stuff.
May 28, 2010, 7:25 pmWally:
Shills,
“But you’d agree that a non fiction book would generally take longer.”
Well, I don’t really know. This is the kind of thing one might be able to find data on before taking it for granted in their argument…
“Undergrads cannot.”
Well, then their opinion doesn’t really matter if he’s just relying on what other people tell him.
“And the peer-review system is specialty-specific so that researchers who aren’t focused on that topic can still use it to inform their research.”
Sorry, if you use it in your research and site it in an article you damn well better undestand it and agree with conclusion drawn that rely on or mention. Of course you can also site something to disagree with it, but this is rare. Regardless, you’re obviously pretty ignorant of actually doing research.
“I don’t think one of those exists, and if they do, they prob. are reasonable.”
Ok, so now you’re saying non-peer reviewed amatuer observations of these supposed hikers (or guides I can’t remember) are probably reasonable, but you want people like myself and Meyer to go through peer review before our thoughts can be used in the public debate…..I mean really? Do you listen to yourself?
May 28, 2010, 7:53 pmWally:
Waldo,
I’m not ignoring that paper, I got busy today, and have not yet had the time to properly read it. I will get to it though.
May 28, 2010, 7:54 pmShills:
Wally,
You say: ‘This is the kind of thing one might be able to find data on before taking it for granted in their argument…’
More disingenuous pedantry from you Wally. You want data? Okay how ’bout the fact that a book has at least 100 pages to several more compared to 10 pages for an article. A book contains chapters covering numerous topics, whilst an article covers just one. What about the fact that books are often just secondary lit. based off the data from papers? Don’t know why you see this as contentious.
you say: ‘Well, then their opinion doesn’t really matter if he’s just relying on what other people tell him.’
They need reliable info to learn from before they can start forming opinions.
you say: ‘Sorry, if you use it in your research and site it in an article you damn well better undestand it and agree with conclusion drawn that rely on or mention’
No shit. Either way, trust in the paper is needed, otherwise researchers would be waisting time reproducing everybody’s results ad nauseam.
You say: ‘Ok, so now you’re saying non-peer reviewed amatuer observations of these supposed hikers (or guides I can’t remember) are probably reasonable’
Again, I don’t think there is any such sources. And they may be reasonable in that the IPCC would not rely on them as anything but peripheral or redundant data. But there could be a mistake like you say, and the IPCC would prob. correct it.
May 29, 2010, 9:45 pmWally:
You know shills,
After your last post containing this little exchange:
“YOu say: ‘If I recall correctly, they were often personal accounts by hikers’
I don’t think one of those exists, and if they do, they prob. are reasonable.”
I no longer care to have this “debate” with you. If you’re going to call for the “deniers” to submit peer review to alter the science, while throwing around endless ad hominems, but at the same time saying some hiker or trail guide’s casual observations are probably reasonable, then you’re obviously both disingenuous and just here to incite readers.
Anyway, I just thought I’d spell that out for you and let you know why I’m no longer going to be responding to you. You’re ignorant, combative and a hypocrite. Good bye.
May 31, 2010, 4:02 pmShills:
Wally,
You are not seeing the differences. Both sides of the arg. must produce peer-review science. But tiny little citations of little to no consequence may pop up in the IPCC report (or skeptical paper), that are based on hearsay, and might be reasonable. The problem, Wally, is that you don’t have any real examples to work off. However, like before, if the source does not fit the bill, then the IPCC would prob. correct it. I am willing to admit it could be a mistake, but we don’t know because we don’t yet have an example.
Re. your little whinge about me: I don’t thing you are being accurate at all. And if I am as you say, I’m still sure that you’re no better. We’ll speak again soon enough, for sure.
May 31, 2010, 5:33 pmWally:
Ok Waldo, I read the paper, though I’m curious just why you brought this one up. It is pretty tame in its conclusions and doesn’t seem to support anything like DAGW, but rather deals with attempting to understand the natural phenomenons at work and just how much effect each has. Over all I don’t have too much to say about it. Forcings from solar activity, axis tilt and green house gasses account for most of the variability, but not all of it. Not really a shocker…
So is there something in particular you want to discuss regarding this paper?
June 3, 2010, 12:09 pmWaldoOK:
Ah ha! I apologize, Wally, I had stopped checking this since nothing seemed to be happening and, actually, I am in the middle of writing an abstract and another article of my own. So – perhaps you will be so kind as to go through it with me, make sure I understand what I am reading? Go ahead and explain anything I don’t understand or get wrong – I have admitted all along that I am a layperson and so I am credulous on that account. Let’s start with the abstract:
If I understand correctly, the paper posits that past temperatures can be read back at least as far as 800K years based on “water stable isotopes,” that these measurements (and other proxies) will be analyzed at the “orbital scale” (and I admit I don’t know what that is) and compared with estimates of ice volume on a global scale. Yes / No / Somewhat?
Then the abstract claims that the paper shows three things: 1) “a strong but changing link between EDC temperature and greenhouse gas global radiative forcing in the first and second part of the record” – which does sound a lot like AGW language to my untrained ears; 2) that there is a clear delineation of temperature variants(“a large residual signature of obliquity” [did I get that right?]) that lags behind these phenomena; and then a somewhat vague sounding statement about the “exceptional character” of these temperatures in these interglacial periods.
Finally in the abstract, it sounds to me like the paper deals with the reasons that models are only partly accurate when dealing with axial tilt which include the interaction between the surface of ice sheets, the ocean, and the atmosphere.
How am I doing?
I chose this paper largely because it is new (why would we read a paper from 20 years ago?) and, as you say, “it is pretty tame” so we are unlikely to devolve into one of our barking matches. Later perhaps we can look at some more contentious papers – if your patience with my reading holds out.
June 6, 2010, 9:08 amWally:
Waldo,
Yes the paper is dealing with these ice core-type measurements from EPICA, and then they compare that proxy to others around the globe.
I don’t interpret the actual temps divergence from the model temps (basically including the effects of axial tilt, solar activity and GHGs as showing some sort of “inaccuracy,” but as demonstrating that we don’t yet know of, much less understand, all the factors involved in establishing global temps.
Otherwise, I’m unsure what you’d like to do here. I don’t really have much criticism for this paper (positive or negative). It’s well done, but not exactly ground breaking. So, I guess we could go through the figures as some sort of mental exercise, but if you think you understand them, and I think I understand them, I don’t see much point since I don’t think this paper has much relevance regarding the skeptic/alarmist debate.
This is one of those papers where, in hindsight, reading the abstract was all I would have cared to do.
June 7, 2010, 10:48 amWAldoooooooo:
Well I don’t want to bore you, Wally, so I guess I could skip over a number of actual questions (such as the relevance of the time span of the study and the implications for GW given that link between temp and forcings) and just ask this: since you have no real criticisms, do you find this paper valid?
June 8, 2010, 11:53 am