[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Your "I don't know" declaration was made in reference to you believing the distorted info in SoF, which leads one to conclude "nobody knows" so what the point in doing anything ....

First of all, thanks for answering the questions.

But, I must ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Your chronology is also wrong.

If you recall, my exact quote was: Global Warming is like religion, I don't know and neither do you.

To which, you made an accusation that I didn't understand the argument. Further, you stated that "it's like me to not even try."

Of course, that is completely false and baseless.

As is your recent comment that I advocate doing nothing.

If you want to know what I suggest, why don't you ask?

Absolutely, but I'd expect that the "different eye-opening conclusion" not be derived based on distorted information.

Now we get down to the nitty gritty of your source.

There are actually more damning characteristics in that Wegman report than fudging data.

Check it out:

The House Committee appointed a group of statisticians of impeccable qualification and independence, under the leadership of Dr Edward Wegman, Professor of Statistics at George Mason University, who chairs the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. They have now produced a report that devastatingly demonstrates what we sceptics knew all along, that the hockeystick is pure nonsense. Of course, the language is much more diplomatic than that, but the effect is no less dramatic. Among the conclusions in the summary are:
• Mann et al. misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.
•A social network analysis revealed that the small community of paleoclimate researchers appears to review each other’s work, and reuse many of the same data sets, which calls into question the independence of peer review and temperature reconstructions.
•Although the researchers rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.
•Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.
•Policy-related climate science should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review involving statisticians.
FULL WEGMAN REPORT at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...man_Report.pdf

From: The Week That Was

Don't take my word for it. Dive into the details. The Wegman report is actually indicting the entire infrastructure used by the so-called global warming experts.

Again, don't make assumptions about what I think about it, ask me directly.

No, you refuse to seriously consider your conclusion was formed on distorted information. That is a head-in-the-sand position.

Have I refused to seriously consider that? How about asking me?

What I am CLEARLY trying to do is show you is that the GW issue isn't as cut and dry as you'd like.

The ONLY justification I can think of for posting on this forum is an exchange of information. If you summarily dismiss other viewpoints before considering them (or not reading them) I have no reason to do the research necessary for a well-informed discussion.

Absolutely. The "talking heads" on the right are leading the view you've adopted (thru enlightenment) ...

You are treading on dangerous ground here. It isn't as clear cut as right versus left.

I'm after truth. No party has a monopoly on that.

The science is apolitical - there's no need for a divide along political affiliation lines.

Do you really think that the left isn't driving the science?

Let me broaden my bias commentary: There is bias in everything done by every human on the planet.

There is more bias in certain avenues, but, to suspect that Professors at Penn State aren't capable of an agenda, is pretty naive.

The hypotheses, the experiment design, the data, the analysis, and the conclusion are there for all to see.

It really isn't that easy. Without going into a long-winded discussion of statistics, observer bias, etc..., one must always be critical of any data presented.

As I suggested, you should consider who the powerful right most closely represent and what the vested interests are.

Again, don't assume that I'm not aware. However, I'm more interested in the actual discussion than who is making them. Remember, I'm not afraid of the messenger or the message. It's YOU that cherry-picks the data.

I'm referring to the science and those who actually understand it.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are totally dismissing the concerns of some well-educated people. Your assumption being that only one side understands the issues. Correct me if I'm reading this correctly.

More on one side than the other ... one side is more focused on the science.

Never mind, I intepreted the previous sentence correctly.

That is utter and complete nonsense. Dive into the Wegman report. See who wrote it. Find out if you can dismiss their concerns so easily.

You won't be able to.

You've proven beyond a doubt that you don't know the difference between "attacking the messenger" and "attacking the positions/points made made by the messenger" using facts.

False. Shall we catolgue your responses? How many people have you summarily dismissed? How many have I?

Let's use the book State of Fear as an example. You didn't read it. Yet, you obviously spent time hiding out in someone else's intepretation.

What if Mann was completely wrong? You would be guilty of not doing your own thinking. You would dismiss the messenger and the message without doing your own thinking.

I think you'll find that I have been far more receptive to alternate viewpoints than yourself.

You fail to recognize that discussions on this topic has been taking place for several years and that some sources have already been vetted and their veracity judged.

Does that mean that everyone is satisfied or that the discussion is closed?

If it's closed, why do you feel the need to re-engage. Just simply state, "I've got it all figured out. My mind is closed."

Bob, was kind enough to do something similar. I respect a good, honest blockhead far more than an intellectually dishonest hack.

I can read contrary viewpoints. When trusted experts on a given subject have already read a viewpoint and have identified clear and repeated flaws, it's logical to not waist your time. Seems straight forward to me.

It seems that this should be translated as: One side is able to dismiss the other sides' experts without being challenged.

You've de facto bowed down to their intepretation without questioning it. Example: State of Fear.

Pretty dangerous ground. Gives one side far too much intellectual lee-way for comfort.

Clearly not. But I've already indicated that many times. But you now chose to ignore an accurate picture of what we do know and at what level of certainty.

I haven't ignored anything. I've told you, I don't know. If you want me to flesh out what I think, why don't you ask?

We are dealing in basic seamanship here, jack. I've had to determine if you are interested in an honest exchange of ideas. By answering the questions, I think the answer is yes.

But, I could be wrong.