Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 Next
Comments 47051 to 47100:
-
perseus at 19:42 PM on 25 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Does the ocean heat data suggest that 'global warming' only started around 1975 (ironically as solar irradiance started to decrease somewhat). Or rather what little warming did occur before that date was being dumped into the low thermal mass of the atmosphere? I suppose we would need to know more about ocean temperatures before the 1950s to confirm that, but based on the limited timespan of measurements it's an interesting possibility.
-
chriskoz at 19:15 PM on 25 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
That confirms my opinion pronounced here a year or two ago, that we should use OHC as the measure of GW rate. We should virtually discontinue watching the LST with their ElNino/LaNina perturbations. Those perturbations have much lesser impact on OHC. In fact, current LaNina cycle should have "apparently" increased the OHC, contributing to the subject acceleration.
Few yaers back, we did not know how to measure OHC, now with the ARGO float we do measure it better and better. At some point I guess we may measure it so accurately that the difference betwen OHC and AHC (from global and vertical temps profile) will be used as a measure of ENSO.
-
geoffchambers at 18:48 PM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis
Please stop analysing my answers. I gave Timothey Mcveigh etc as examples of things I might say in an online survey. Or not. Since I see what you’re getting at, I’ve decided that I no longer believe that Prince Philip killed Lady Di. So there.
See what I mean? Ask someone face to face who they’ll vote for and they’ll likely give you an honest answer. Ask questions on-line about subjects hardly anyone knows about , with no possibility of saying you don’t know and anything can happen. Or nothing.
I know nothing about McVeigh, so the only honest answer would be “don’t know”. But this wasn’t permitted in the survey, and so I would have been tempted to go for ”strong belief” one way or the other. I believe strongly in people having strong opinions. I don’t believe in on-line surveys, (-snip-).
By the way, the age range was from 10 to 95, according to the paper. Another reason for naming LOG12 as Unusual Survey of the Year.
Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
gpwayne at 17:03 PM on 25 March 2013Arctic freezing season ends with a loud crack
Could I suggest it might be more accurate, and appropriate, to echo Neven's description - that the Greenland ice sheet surface was melting, rather than claim that "almost all of the Greenland Ice Sheet was melting at one point" which is not the kind of scientifically accurate description I have come to expect from SkS?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:50 PM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff Chambers @78 (conspiracy theory).
Well, I'm glad we have that sorted. I cannot help noting, however, that your "I tend to find it credible" is considerably weaker than your WUWT statement that "I strongly agree". It is also a far cry from considering it credible that CIA agents may be tempted to perform illegal acts, and considering simply part of their job (as indicated at WUWT).
For the record, I have no opinion on Timothy McVeigh because I lack relevant information (and have never tried to find it). I consider a plot to kill Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jnr implausible, and that while there is some suggestive evidence in the first case (I have not examined the second), it is insufficient to overcome the inherent implausibility of the theory and there is counter evidence. So, my response is to refuse to answer the McVeigh question as any answer would mispresent my opinion; to weakly disagree on the Kennedy assassination, and to strongly disagree on the Martin Luther King assassination. I strongly disagree with all other CY theories on the survey.
All three scenarios are sufficiently plausible that they could be true (absent all evidence); but not sufficiently plausible that you would accept them in the absence of strong evidence.
The question though, is not whether they are true or not. In LOG12, the survey tests for the likelihood of accepting a conspiracy theory. Somebody who accepts only one theory is still a conspiracy theorist but is not particularly prone to accepting them. Somebody who accepts three, particularly somebody who strongly agrees with three... Well, it seems to me they are setting a very low bar for acceptance for conspiracy theories. They are reasonably classified as prone to conspiracist ideation.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:29 PM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff Chambers @78:
1) Each recursive theory which shows "unreflexive counterfactual thinking" shows counterfactual thinking in that they could only be valid criticisms of LOG12 if at least one of the "skeptic" blogs had posted the survey. As none of them did, the theories in question presupose counterfactual conditions for relevance.
This is most obvious in theory 5:
"Di fferent versions of the survey (5). Because question order was counterbalanced between di fferent versions of the LOG12 survey, links to the various versions were quasi-randomly assigned to participating blogs. The existence of di fferent versions of the survey gave rise to several hypotheses, for example that ". . . the most troubling new revelation appears to be that some climate skeptic blogs got di fferent questionaires [sic] than their counterpart AGW advocate blogs. . . . this negates the study on the basis of inconsistent sampling". This hypothesis rests on counterfactual thinking: Even if survey versions had di ffered on some variable other than question order, given that none of the "skeptic" blogs posted the link and hence did not contribute responses, any claim regarding the published data based on those di fferences among versions rests on a counterfactual state of the world. Arguably, this hypothesis also rests on the presumption of nefarious intent and the belief that something must be wrong (NI, MbW )."
(My emphasis)
Clearly the quoted claim that the different question order "negates the study" is counterfactual in that, as the "skeptic" blogs never published the survey, the different question order for "skeptic" blog versions of the survey had no impact on the data collected. Ergo it has no impact on the published paper.
This is explained in LCOM13 each time the claim is made. It is even explained that the claim that "skeptic" blogs were contacted later "... never matured to the point of clarifying how this delay could have had any bearing on the outcome of the study ...", but it is included as counterfactual in that any criticism of the database and hence paper based on the delayed contact must necessarilly be counterfactual.
Your inability to understand the explanation represents neither a flaw in the paper, nor a slander of any person (named or otherwise).
2) The fact that John Cook notified people of the survey on the SkS twitter feed rather than on the blog site itself is not an error in LCOM13 as LCOM13 does not make any claim to the contrary. Rather, they quote a claim in LOG12, which does make that claim. That is entirely appropriate because the actual event is not germaine to LCOM13, whereas the reported event against which the various hypotheses where directed was.
3) I am disinclined to say anybody is without bias, myself included. More importantly, so were LCOM13, who only indicated that the two authors of LCOM13 who were also authors of LOG12 had a particular cause of bias, and that as a control for that, they were excluded from the data collection.
Consequently, your claim that LCOM13 "... insist on the fact that the authors of the content analysis have been chosen for their lack of bias", is pure bunk and a straightforward misprepresentation of the claims in LCOM13. Where I as hypercritical as you are, I would no doubt charge you with lying here. Instead, I suspect you are simply so upset by the paper that you have not bothered to read carefully what it actually says.
Again, your inability to read and comprehend what was written in LCOM13 is not a valid criticism of LCOM13
-
mandas at 13:14 PM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoffchambers @78
"...I tend to find it credible that the fascist Timothy McVeigh had assistance from his fascist friends; that the communist / CIA agent Lee Harvey Oswald had assistance from his friends of one kind or another......I have no difficulty in imagining that the CIA (and possibly Texan Oil interests) conspired in the murder of Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Therefore I am a Big Oil funded conservative...."
No Geoff. Those things do not make you a conservative - they make you a conspiracy theorist.
-
DSL at 12:44 PM on 25 March 2013David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming
Cicco, if AR4 is too ancient for you, there's always Jones et al. (2013).
-
Bert from Eltham at 11:45 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
It all seems to me that denial of having symptoms of conspiracist ideation is on the rise. When plotted as a time dependant function it looks just like the dreaded 'hockey stick' so often derided by deniers of AGW. There is a positive feedback in all this denial of having conspiracist ideation. Even when redefining your posts as being on the side of science or defending real science it is adding to these symptoms. Bert
-
Steve Metzler at 10:56 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
I'm so glad that Tom Curtis explained that Brad Keyes imagines sites like Skeptical Science, Real Climate, and Open Mind are anti-science, whereas SPPI, Morano, Bishop Hill et. al. are 'science defending'. His perception of reality is completely flipped. I thought I was going crazy there for a while the other day reading the comments here, but now I understand why Brad has a thread all to himself on Deltoid. One word: containment.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:52 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
RE: John @ 80....
As opposed to how many people have used the term "fury" over the same period. :-)
-
jmsully at 10:36 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Out of curiosity, how many readers of this thread have used the word, "recursive" in casual conversation during the past twelve months or so?
When discussing implementation strategies for an algorithm? Not exactly casual, but it has been done...
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:04 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
JH: ...how many readers of this thread have used the word, "recursive" in casual conversation during the past twelve months or so?
Raises hand.
-
David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming
Cicco - I would have to say one of the most clear illustrations of a climate null hypothesis, that of what we would expect with only natural forcings, is incorporated in the IPCC AR4 report:
[Source]
Where the top illustration is the result of modeling temperatures with both natural and anthropogenic forcings, and the bottom is the result of modeling temperatures with only the natural forcings. Natural forcings alone, given the physics, would have resulted in temperatures some 0.8C cooler over the Industrial Era.
Add to that, in the context of this thread, that ocean heat content has done nothing but rise in the last 50 years (see Fig. 1 in the opening post) whereas the null hypothesis would be no change.
Finally - in every temperature record we have,when you include enough information to separate between a null hypothesis of no warming and a long term warming trend (19-24 years, depending on the record and its short term variations) - you see statistically significant warming. There is really no doubt about that whatsoever.
-
Cicco at 09:19 AM on 25 March 2013David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming
Hello everyone.
Normally in statistics the null hypothesis is that "nothing will change". In the case of the global mean temperature that would mean that it would remain where we would expect it based upon "natural" events.
Given that has anyone seen a 95% or 99% confidence interval of where we'd expect the temperature to be if there was not an underlying change brought about by carbon dioxide?
For a skeptic, or denialist, to pick on the confidence interval of a "prediction" is inconsequential. There is no way that that could be modelled in a super accurate manner as there is no way that anyone can know for sure what the strengths of ENSO and solar cycles will be.
I'm guessing that if someone was to do a 99% confidence interval of stationarity of global mean temperature, allowing for know cycles that are out of humanity's hands, that the temperatures we have seen in the last few decades would have exceeded that.
In other words can we finally put up a statistical arguement to say that "almost surely" the global mean temperature is increasing?
-
John Hartz at 09:18 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Out of curiosity, how many readers of this thread have used the word, "recursive" in casual conversation during the past twelve months or so?
-
Pete Dunkelberg at 09:12 AM on 25 March 2013Arctic freezing season ends with a loud crack
This year so far, the Arctic has not matched last years high temperatures:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Yet it seems that more cold air is pouring south from the Arctic than last year, at least in March. Is there a unified explanation for last year's high temperatures and this year's overall cooler Arctic?
Why did the Arctic temperature plummet at around day 50?
-
John Hartz at 09:08 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
@geoffchambers:
Out of curiosity, what is your position on Agenda 21?
-
geoffchambers at 08:43 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis
I’ve added a couple more errors at Frontiers, including the one which you admitted here. (-snip-).
The point is, when you accuse named people of “counterfactual thinking” in a scientific paper, you need to be whiter than the whitest sepulchre. And when you insist on the fact that the authors of the content analysis have been chosen for their lack of bias; and (-snip-).
On me and conspiracy theories:
I tend to find it credible that the fascist Timothy McVeigh had assistance from his fascist friends; that the communist / CIA agent Lee Harvey Oswald had assistance from his friends of one kind or another, and so on. I would regard those who deny such possibilities as “conformist”.
It’s odd, don’t you think, that those like Lewandowsky who treat the questioning of the official version of events as psychologically deviant, consider themselves as radical? I have no difficulty in imagining that the CIA (and possibly Texan Oil interests) conspired in the murder of Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Therefore I am a Big Oil funded conservative. Go figure.
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints and Inflammatory snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.
-
mandas at 08:31 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad Keys @69
You have missed dghoza's point completely.
There is no controversy, because:
1 - climate change is well established by science and evidence. Thrre is no controversy about it at all, except in the minds of those who deny science.
2 - there is no controversy about the well established fact that many climate change deniers are also conspiracy theorists. Anyone who has spent any time at all on climate change blogs knows that - from beliefs like scientiists are faking the science to obtain grant money, to its all a conspiracy to impose a socialist world government. I have seen them all, time and time again. Now there is supposed to be a conspiracy by Lewandowsky and Cook to discredit climate change 'sceptics' by equating them with conspiracy theorists. My irony meter explodes every time I read threads like this. It is one of the most entertaining and hilarious things I get to read each day.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:02 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff Chambers @60:
"I can’t answer you in detail for reasons I can’t explain"
In that case the evidence from your WUWT will have to stand. And on that evidence you believe strongly at least three of the LOG12 survey conspiracies, including at least one involving assassinations.
"LCOM13 contained errors. More than 3; more like 30. It was wrong."
No where near 30. More like three, or possibly 4 substantive errors which at least one of the authors wants corrected prior to the paper being in print; and no error invalidating the primary thesis.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:55 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff Chambers @61, that again? Obsess much, do we?
OK, John Cook tweeted the survey for LOG12 rather than posting it on SkS proper. He then advised Lewnadowsky that the survey had been posted, and a year later when you questioned him, remembered only that it had been posted, and not that the post had only been by tweet. Indeed, he's a busy person so posting on SkS proper may have slipped from his mental "to-do" list to his mental "done" list almost immediately.
What follows?
Is LOG12 distorted by an under representation of acceptors of the IPCC concensus as a result? Does it make any substantive difference to the paper?
The answer clearly is no to both. The "error" in the paper is properly corrected prior to publication by a footnote saying that the SkS notice was tweeted rather than blogged; and is of so minor consequence it requires no erratum after publication.
Only those determined to find every fault and blow them up without regard to any sense of proportion would care, let alone care and be pursuing the issue a year later. That you are doing so tells us nothing about the quality of LOG12, but shows that as a reviewer of LOG12 you are obsessive and biased. That you are a conspiracy theorist suggests why. The thesis of LOG12, ie, that people prone to conspiracist thinking are also more prone to anthropogenic global warming denial than are the rest of the population, strikes a little too close to home for your comfort.
-
Uncle Pete at 06:49 AM on 25 March 2013Enhanced SkS Graphics Provide New Entry Point into SkS Material
Well done, thank you guys.
-
John Hartz at 06:43 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
@John Cook:
Do you now have enough raw material from this comment thread for another paper in your series?
-
Brad Keyes at 06:13 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Sphaerica,
You can't see the irony? Really?
Er, if we could both see it it wouldn't be ironic, would it?
-
william5331 at 05:45 AM on 25 March 2013Arctic freezing season ends with a loud crack
The comment that the leads freeze up rather quickly and the second comment that there is about as much ice volume now at its peak as there was last year hint at something interesting. One would expect more ice to form each winter in this transition stage to a new climate regime. If there is a cover of insullating ice on Sept 15, as was the case many years ago, heat has to conduct through this ice into the atmosphere in order to freeze more ice to the bottom of the ice sheet. With open water or thin ice, heat transfer is much faster. Later in the sequence, when the Arctic is open water, say, at the first of August, so much heat could be accumulated by the Arctic ocean that less total ice will be formed in the winter. The present situation may go some way to explain the increased influx of Atlantic water since more brine is being formed by the greater amount of ice formed and this sinking, south flowing brine is being replace on the surface from the south. Incidentally, go to the NSIDC site for November and it is reported about half way down that open water is causing rising air and a little further down that winds are coming from the south. Sounds very much like a reversal of the Polar Hadley cell which should occur in the fall as the land rapidly cools down. Note also that the high pressue is due to cold dense air falling. , spreading out southward with a clockwise spin provided by coriolis. It is weakening as this cooling decreases. When some serious heat is collected by the Arctic ocean as the state of openness comes earlier and earlier in the year, we should have longer and longer periods of rising air with air sucked from the south and with a counter clockwise spin. Coriolis tends to push floating ice in the conventional clockwise rotating Beauford gyre toward the centre. In a Counter clockwise rotation, which would be caused by rising air, Coriolis will tend to send the ice outward. If strong enough, a reversed Beauford gyre should have upwelling of deep Atlantic water at its centre.
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:35 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
You can't see the irony? Really?
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:34 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
He didn't ask "what controversy?"
He asked "what scientific controversy."
The fact that you'd like to argue doesn't make the argument worth having.
-
Brad Keyes at 05:34 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Sphaerica, you refer to
a small community of "victims" who have identified themselves as separate and special
It sounds like you're skeptical (as it were!) of their claims that they were targeted by an organised email campaign of death threats and had to relocate to higher-security facilities. I share your cynicism. Their victimhood was... convenient. :-)
-
Brad Keyes at 05:27 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
dhogaza:"What scientific controversy?"This is a climate-change website. The scientific controversy has to do with how the global average temperature has responded and will respond to industrial carbon-dioxide emissions, and whether the effects will be net-beneficial or net-detrimental, and whether we need to do anything to moderate them. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:26 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
I'm not going to engage you, because this is silly. John Cook's paper says it all, and I have no intention of spending my time arguing about "sides" that have been entirely fabricated by a small community of "victims" who have identified themselves as separate and special.
-
dhogaza at 05:12 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
"Yes, it's unfortunate that a scientific controversy should play out along partisan lines."
What scientific controversy?
-
Brad Keyes at 04:36 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Sphaerica, sorry, we cross-posted. I substantially agree with your latest comment:
The whole concept of sides in this is warped.
(Now that it's clearer what your position is, I take back my "speak for yourself" remark.)
Yes, it's unfortunate that a scientific controversy should play out along partisan lines. Nevertheless, it's possible (and appropriate) to acknowledge that it has done so, without necessarily condoning it.
-
Bob Lacatena at 04:25 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad,
The problem is that there are no two sides to some faux debate. There are facts and discussions worth having among reasonable, educated people.
And then there is a self-identified community, entirely tangent to reality, who are focused on fabricating this bizarre, elaborate controversy. They must be heard! They are important! This is a crisis! They alone are right, and people must be made aware!
The whole concept of sides in this is warped.
-
DSL at 04:24 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
No joke, Sph. What I find bizarre is that, apparently, for GC et al., the only studies worth giving critical attention are those that have rhetorical value where the general public is concerned -- Mann, Marcott, Lewandowsky, Shakun -- anything that gives the public a simple and powerful takeaway. Would that this intense scrutiny--this intense <i>skepticism</i>--be applied to the likes of Eschenbach, Spencer, Tisdale, etc., . . .
I'm not saying it's evidence of conspiraphilia. It's just selective skepticism, an oxymoron (or carbon di-oxymoron, as the case may be).
-
Brad Keyes at 04:18 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tristan—'mainstream' versus 'heterodox' is unfortunately a consensus-dependent, and thus volatile, nomenclature.
What's wrong with the normal system in use everywhere else, in which credal groups are named for their views?
E.g. '[C[A[GW]]]' 'believers' versus 'deniers.' Or 'climate activists' versus 'climate inactivists.'
-
Bob Lacatena at 03:31 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
It's just amazing to see the conspiracy ideation grow and thrive, even here, where the point is to try to recognize the conspiracy ideation and to get people to try to be more rational.
John Cook should apologize!
LCOM13 had errors!
Barry was misrepresented!
Brad has scored points!
The whole thing is comical, and sad.
Of course, at least part of the core of the real problem, as best evidenced by Brad's comments, is that the conspiracy crowd has created their own little tribe. They've created a community that defines the argument not in the context of the issues, facts, etc. (which is how science works), but instead in terms of sides, villains, and those-who-are-out-to-get-them.
That to me is the real distinction. In some corners of the Internet people really do discuss the science, but those tend to be rational, clear-thinking people, and it doesn't take long before everyone reaches a consensus based entirely on the evidence -- which is pretty hard to distort or refute.
But then you get into the conspiracy theorist corners, and everything goes off the rails. Suddenly it's not discussing the science, it's a debate, with two sides trying to win, and one of those sides is evil and uses dirty tactics and is just in it to make money, etc., etc. And the other side is full of noble, clear-thinking folk who are just trying to do the right thing, to stop those villainous cads, and to give truth, justice and the scientific way an ultimate victory over the weasley cabal of anti-scientists that have somehow taken over the entire world of climate science.
Brad and Geoff and Barry can throw the word "science" around all they want, but in the end, no matter how much they say it, it's not about the science, it's about the sides -- and the only reason there are sides is because they've redefined the discussion as such. And once they have their sides, everything revolves around fighting a war instead of understanding the universe.
I'm a little surprised that Josh hasn't designed a battle flag for them all to use.
-
geoffchambers at 00:12 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis at 19:26 PM on 24 March, 2013
So invitations to participate in LOG12 weren’t published at SkepticalScience, and the information provided by John Cook was incorrect. Will he be issuing an apology?
-
geoffchambers at 00:06 AM on 25 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis I can’t answer you in detail for reasons I can’t explain. It’s about belief being interesting.
As you say, LCOM13 contained errors. More than 3; more like 30. It was wrong. Three or four people getting together in private in order to do something wrong is a conspiracy.
-
Tristan at 21:04 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
It's not a trivial task to apply nomenclature that both parties find appropriate. I'd tender 'mainstream' and 'heterodox' where the climate change heterodoxy holds that Charney sensitivity is most likely to be below 2C.
-
Brad Keyes at 20:09 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Thanks for the plug, Lotharsson!
-
Brad Keyes at 20:08 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
BaerbelW:
your definitions are diametrically opposed to mine (and, just in case you are not aware of this, I'm part of the SkS-team, so this shouldn't really come as a big surprise).
No, I had no idea.
Firstly, thanks for mucking down and addressing me commenter-to-commenter, (-snip-).
Secondly, given the 100% risk of definitional disputes, which sidetrack all subsequent dialogue, as we've just experienced, perhaps it would be better to designate the two sides in the traditional manner, i.e. according to their respective views, rather than by the question-begging premise that one side, and not the other, agrees with science. Calling your side pro-science and mine pseudoscientific, "skeptical" or science-denying is loaded language, to put it very mildly.
I'm sure you were annoyed when I reversed the bias. I trust I made my point.
(-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone and off-topic snipped. -
Lotharsson at 20:02 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
My only agenda, or axe to grind if you like, is defending the integrity of science.
There's arguably considerable evidence to the contrary on the special Deltoid thread that Brad Keyes is confined to posting on. I recommend to those considering engaging with Brad Keyes invest in a quick perusal to see what they're dealing with in terms of both content and discussion tactics. You probably won't get through all 4000+ (and counting) comments, but the first few hundred should give you a pretty good idea.
-
Brad Keyes at 19:49 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom:
The blogs contacted second, and hence defined by Brad as "science defending" are:
No, I define them as "science defending" because they defend science, not because they were contacted second.
-
BaerbelW at 19:26 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Brad Keyes - thanks for clarifying what I thought was the case: your definitions are diametrically opposed to mine (and, just in case you are not aware of this, I'm part of the SkS-team, so this shouldn't really come as a big surprise).
Your definition also explains why your repeatedly stated sequence of events (one example here) of which blog(type) was contacted when is a red-herring. There is no discrepancy in the actual events, you just turn them on their heads by arbitrarily re-defining which blogs fall into which category compared to the paper's authors.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:26 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
BaerbelW @57, the blogs contacted first by Lewandowsky (and hence described as misinformation sites by Brad) are:
- Skeptical Science (posted by tweet only, Aug 27th, 2010)
- Climate Asylum (posted Aug 28th, 2010)
- Open Mind (posted on Aug 28th, 2010)
- Deltoid (posted on Aug 29th, 2010)
- Global Warming: Man or Myth? (posted Aug 29th, 2010)
- A Few Things Ill Considered (posted Aug 29th, 2010)
- Hot Topic (posted Aug 30th, 2010)
- Climate Change Task Force (posted as an addendum to a July 17th post, presumably in late August, 2010)
(The dates are the times the surveys were posted.)
The blogs contacted second, and hence defined by Brad as "science defending" are:
- Steve McIntyre Climate Audit
- Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
- Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
- Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
- Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)
He has also specified that WUWT, Jonova and Biship Hill as "good examples of pro-science sites". The list speaks for itself and demolishes any claim he makes to be "defending science" or to accept AGW.
-
Brad Keyes at 16:51 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom:
Geoff Chambers ... didn't want to make AGW "skepticism" look bad. Brad Keyes (@50) insists on reminding us that he is way to (sic) late.
Tom, you may find this hard to believe but I don't doubt the reality of AGW. My only agenda, or axe to grind if you like, is defending the integrity of science.
-
Brad Keyes at 16:46 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis:
"The question is, why do you find it so absolutely intolerable that I should give my opinion of events in my own terms?"
I don't.
And since you attempt to (incorrectly, as it turns out) indicate my opinion, I'd appreciate if you did so by quoting me.
They say you're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. But I'm generous enough to allow people to have their own facts, too. Like your "fact" whereby the blogs that were contacted last (the science-defending blogs) were contacted first, and the blogs that were contacted first (the misinformation blogs) were contacted last. Sure, you've got historical facts inverted, but I respect your right to believe as you do. Just try not to attribute the inversion to other people (like Geoff), please.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:43 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff Chambers did not want to take A Scott's "replication" of LOG12 because he didn't want to make AGW "skepticism" look bad. Brad Keyes (@50) insists on reminding us that he is way to late.
-
Brad Keyes at 16:29 PM on 24 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis:
1) I note that you do not find Foxgoose's suggestion that Lewandowsky and co-authors had determined the survey results before they conducted the survey absurd.
Whether that suggestion is true or not, what's absurd about it?
Also, remind me—when did Lewandowsky et al. come up with the title "NASA faked the moon landings; therefore (climate) science is a hoax"—before or after all the data had come in, been analysed and found to show a causal relationship ("therefore") between moon-Trutherism and whatever it is you imagine CAGW deniers believe?
Prev 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 Next
