Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 10:25am PT
|
One has to wonder when ST's favorite "Dunning–Kruger effect" poster will look in a mirror.
Apparently never. He doesn't seem to have figured out even what the term means, or how it applies to so many things he says.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 10:38am PT
|
someone has to fill in for Fattrad
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 10:53am PT
|
The consensus camp seems to have upped it's game regarding efforts to discredit well-known skeptics. Much of it involves character assassination. and efforts to prevent skeptics from access to research data. They're comfortable playing dirty for "the cause".
Sketch, as usual you're just reciting talking points fed to you by your blogs. The description above isn't real, but how would you know when you learn nothing outside that hall of mirrors?
For example, the ATTP post that I quoted and you waved off with talking points is specific, and not about any of your points. It does not involve character assassination, or "secret" data; ATTP tries hard to "keep the discussion civil," he's just getting worn out. I'd invite you to try again, actually read what you waved off, but you've shown no ability to do that.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
|
Sketch writes:
You say those stories are untrue. Back up your claims.
A little Freudian slip eh?! hehe
Didn't you originally post the links as truths? That would put the ball in your court. If you can't prove the accuracy, how do you expect someone to prove the inaccuracy?
Strange. BTW, how is the biking coming along?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
Sketch is again being disingenious about the two articles he posted.
The first (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/28/whos-really-waging-the-war-on-science/); is a opinion piece with zero references to back up the claims it makes.
It starts with the following:
Global warming alarmists constantly claim they are being “harassed” by climate chaos skeptics.
Remember "Climategate?" Who hacked the computers and what was the overall smear that they successfully embedded in the minds of the public? Were the scientists at the center of the controversy ever exonorated, and at what cost to those scientists?
There, I just debunked the entire OpEd.
Next, Cook’s Trick has been thorougly debunked in this very topic on SuperTopo, and Sketch even responded to the posts debunking the "controversy." Now he comes back, and disenguniously "wants to know" if the article is true our not.
Not an uncommon mode of operation for Sketch, to continually ignore the answers to the questions he poses.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
>>>>>As for the .63 watts/m2, please refer to the left axis. Note the increase from 1990 to 2010.
>>>Left axis?
>>>It shows radiative forcing from 0.0 to 3.0. 2013 appears to be 2.9.
>>>How does it show ".63 watts/m2"?
>>LOL!!! You really cant make this stuff up.
So now that the denialist camp gave up on that line of denience,
the next pop-up claim is that skeptics "won" a debate.
That's like claiming the Catholics won a debate with Galileo.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
|
Well..
"Chiloe as usual you're just reciting talking points fed to you by your
blogs. The AGW description above isn't real, but how would you know?
You never look outside that warmist hall of mirrors you call home"
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 01:05pm PT
|
They are their own proof.
^^This is proof you you don't understand science.^^
Thanks for the invite to the Bizarro world, but I'll pass.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2014 - 01:07pm PT
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 7, 2013 - 06:00pm PT
Have you read the criticisms of his study? Have you read the public comments by scientists who disagreed with Cook's assertion that they supported his position?
Yes, I have. Richard Tol made a fool of himself, didn't he? That rejection letter when he tried to publish his diatribe as a journal contribution was priceless. Most of the bloggers who attacked Cook pretty quickly gave away that they had not read the paper. So I'll ask again, have you read it?
Sketch
Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 7, 2013 - 06:33pm PT
So I'll ask again, have you read it?
No. But I've read enough to know it's BS.
Yes, Welcome to Bizarro World.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
|
same ol sketch
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2014 - 01:28pm PT
|
Classic K-man. Posts a bunch of irrelevant dribble and then claims victory.
Um, my "dribble" is right on theme. Only a fool would propose otherwise.
The first sentence of the OpEd states the thrust of the piece. I showed how the premis was incorrect. The rest of what is stated is stained by an incorrect premis.
Next, Cook’s Trick has been thorougly debunked in this very topic on SuperTopo, and Sketch even responded to the posts debunking the "controversy." Now he comes back, and disenguniously "wants to know" if the article is true our not.
You just make this stuff up.
Looks like you missed my posted where I backed up my claim.
Try to keep up.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
|
Sketch quotes an OpEd on WUWT.
Again, blogs over science.
On WUWT, Wikipedia has this:
In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy. Because of its high traffic numbers, the blog played a key role in the resulting controversy; the resulting investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.[3]
The site seems to be designed to spread mis-information. Sketch keeps eating it up.
But wait, there's more:
Reception
According to Alexa internet statistical analysis, What's Up With That? is ranked No. 9,282 in the U.S. and No. 24,144 world-wide.[17] WUWT receives more than two million visits per month.[18] Fred Pearce, environmental writer and author, described WUWT as the "world's most viewed climate website" in his 2010 publication of The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming.[19] Matt Ridley of The Spectator described WUWT as having "metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians".[20]
Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist and contributor to the IPCC First Assessment Report, described WUWT as part of a new "parallel universe" of emerging online publications, manned by serious scientists critical of world governments approach to climate change: "A parallel universe is assembling itself parallel to the IPCC. This universe has become very technical – very proficient at taking apart the U.N.'s findings."[21]
Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[22] Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[23]"There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts", wrote David Suzuki.[24]
This universe has become very technical – very proficient at taking apart the U.N.'s findings.
I gotta wonder, who funds those "very technical" folks who want to take apart the U.N.'s finding? Hobbists?
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 01:50pm PT
|
I don't know man but briefly skimming that narrative doesn't seem to do anything for me in terms of spelling anything out?? Maybe I lack humor today? Or is it just the humor in itself that it spells out?
Anyway, how is the bike coming along? Answer my ?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
|
IMO, this narrative seems to spell it out.
yes it does, it spells out a complete misunderstanding of how science is done. The independent confirmation of a result is usually produced by an entirely different analysis on data independently acquired. The methodology of the first paper being spelled out completely, it should be possible for a second person to reproduce the result using the same methodology.
I would never request data from another scientists to redo the calculation appearing in one of those scientist's paper. Instead, I would conduct an entirely different experiment with the aim to obtain, independently, the result described in their paper.
Whether or not Cook, et al. did something in their own analysis that allowed them to obtain a result unsupported by their data, the best way to verify it is to reproduce the study, independently.
Reconciling the differences at the end is how science moves forward, by understanding why there are differences.
On the other hand, if you want to have a legal process to prove an alleged fraudulent claim, that's an entirely different process to be conducted not by the scientific community itself, but by the appropriate regulating institutions (depending on the seriousness of the supposed fraud). Frequently the accused scientists organization will conduct an inquiry.
In climate science there have been such serious accusations brought by state attorney generals (Virginia comes to mind) but the courts have generally dismissed the cases having been "found deficient".
In science, uncovering what is correct and what is not rests on the reproducibility of the analysis. Because the science should be reproducible, independently.
As for the conclusions of the Cook et al. article, it is evident that the focus of climate science for the past 40 years has been to explain the departure of the climate from what was expected. This corresponds to the time when the departure has been large enough to have exceeded the natural variability of the climate system.
For the most part (and that is nearly all) climate science has focused on the human contributions to this climate change. It cannot be considered "news" that Cook et al. find this in the literature. What is driving climate science now is the understanding of the details of the climate, including establishing what a "normal climate expectation" is, and how the departures from that "normal climate" are driven by human activity.
Because most climate scientists spend their time on these issues, it is natural to conclude that there is a consensus among those scientists that understanding the role humans play in climate change is a very high priority in their science program. It is currently the largest factor influencing the climate. Cook et al. show how scientists have decided to spend their research time, probably the best indication of "consensus" that you could have.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 02:09pm PT
|
>>That's like claiming the Catholics won a debate with Galileo.
>Okay, smart guy. Since you think your so smart, please tell me where the >following figures are in the FAR?
I was discussing your own graph that you misread.
Jul 29, 2014 - 09:19am PT you posted
"Here are some more goodies." + graphs.
and it clearly shows radiative forcing increasing from
1.7 watts/ sq meter in 1979 to 2.2 in 1990 to 2.9 in 2013.
here's the same graph from the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/climate-forcing.html
I'm not the one who posted the FAR figure,
however it's not that difficult to find similar information.
Here's one:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html
>And about that debate... I only know of one formal debate between
>skeptics and AGW proponents. The skeptics won. If there have been >other public debates, perhaps you can provide some info on them.
The point is - that validity/evidence/proof in science is not debated in a courtroom like the Scopes monkey trial. Apparently you have learned little in years of polite posts from Ed and Chiloe, explaining how the scientific process works.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
|
I don't think that any amount of explanation can change a particular closely held belief.
Most of this "debate" revolves around beliefs, not so much about the science, how it's done and by who.
My understanding of climate science, which is relatively newly formed, is that we have a very detailed understanding of how the climate works, and that to understand the 20th and 21st century observed climate the affects of human activities, primarily CO2 emission, is a significant factor and required to explain the observations.
That is my take as someone who is able to read the scientific literature, can discuss the issue with other scientists, and even reproduce some of the results in that literature.
While I have read a lot of the criticisms of this particular conclusion, when I have pursued understanding those criticisms, they either do not hold under scientific scrutiny or fail when tested against observation.
That's how I see it... I'm not here to dissuade Sketch of his beliefs, he can choose himself.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 02:43pm PT
|
Fuk the science. Look at the evidence Ed. In no way does a measly .8C temp rise in the 150 years coming out of the LIA amount to anything beyond natural variability.
My, my Chiloe aren't you and Bruce (mr. Dunning Krueger) tone deaf.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2014 - 03:13pm PT
|
"fUK THE SCIENCE"
That says it ALL ,right there.
You 3% have your view,We,who believe in science ,the 97% ,have ours.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!