Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack78
And my point was that GW is nothing like religion.
|
Hey, jack.
I disagree. In order to feel as "sure" about GW as you apparently do, you must have faith. Faith that your global warming crowd is sticking to the science. Faith that they aren't driven by an agenda.
If you don't have faith, how else can one explain you refusing to vet their methods? Or, taking their word for it regarding alternate viewpoints.
If it isn't faith, then I shudder to imagine what one would call it.
Quote:
|
Our understanding of GW has grown significantly over time
|
I agree. Yet, it has a LONG way to go.
Quote:
|
and continues to progress by way of the scientific method.
|
It needs to be scrupulously applied. Unfortunately, the basis of much of your golden-boy's claims are under a cloud of suspicion.
Quote:
|
Your comments also play off of Crichton’s own projection of GW where he falsely references the level of disagreement within the GW science community and so proclaims that his guess was as good as anyone’s.
|
I have some trouble with that comment. Within the 42 or so insular "climatologists" for which you are so fond, there isn't much public disagreement. As Wegman pointed out, it's hard for them to change their stance without losing face.
However, starting in 2003 Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick noted something pretty fishy about the hockey stick graph. State of Fear came out in 2004. Both these events probably spurred the Wegman report of 2006.
Therefore, I agree that within your entrenched 42 members, there isn't much public disagreement. However, outisde that insular boundary, there appears to be plenty of skepticism.
Quote:
|
What do you advocate we do based on what we know now about GW, polynikes? Of course we must be mindful of your opinion that we lack “useable knowledge”.
|
That isn't exactly what I meant. Let me clarify: I think we lack enough knowledge to make sweeping changes to industry, tax codes, etc.
I am all for cleaner energy alternatives? Why? Less reliance on ME oil = less blood/money spent. Environmental concerns regarding fossil fuel extraction. Further, even though we release less than 1% of the CO2 worldwide, I'd feel better being safer until we have a consensus.
Finally, there needs to be an honest/open/transparent meeting of 1st-3rd world countries. Send five top scientists from each country. Must include a chosen representative from the fossil fuel crowd in each delegation. There must be at least 25% representation from people each country designates as "global warming skeptics."
Toss them in a room and see what happens.
Until we have an HONEST and OPEN debate on this, people will remain skeptical.
Quote:
|
Yet I was commenting on the “enlightenment” you experienced by reading SoF, a book whose conclusions are aided by several very specific misrepresentations of science, as discussed in articles I linked for you (attacking the message, not the messenger). …. But you moved the subject to Wegman, whose own constructive conclusions, were mired within the congressional FUD effort. …
|
This is where I have a real problem with you. For the sake of argument, imagine that there were errors in both SOF and Wegman, where is your criticism of Mann? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. If errors automatically invalidate SOF (you didn't even read it) and Wegman, why haven't you applied the same criteria to Mann?
Quote:
|
To enlighten everyone, you march out a link to a disturbingly warped spew from a well known corporate front group funded by Exxon.
|
Again, your hypocrisy is showing. You traduce Exxon and other skeptics, while continually denying that Mann is under a cloud of suspicion because he's a known democrat, college professor, and part of a self-reinforcing circle of global warming hysterics.
Quote:
|
BTW … Heartland’s is also a corporate front funded by big oil. McIntyre and McKitrick – direct links to oil interests. Committee Chairman Barton, himself is a former oil exec who represents Texas oil constituents and who is, surprise, is a leading “denier”.
|
I'm aware of links to big oil. I'm also aware of alleged links.
However, until their suspicions or their criticisms are shown to be scientifically unfounded, I will continue to listen to both sides.
I care more about the message than the messenger.
Quote:
|
Whose ox gets gored if the status quo is disrupted, polynikes? … and you parrot every spun position … but hey, you’re enlightened.
|
Either you are ignorant or you are so partisan that you can't see both sides. Maybe you are an ignorant partisan. It happens.
Please don't tell me you can't understand the attraction politically to a party who can claim they are the only ones that care about the environment. If people believe that and they institute any action (scientifically sound or not) that APPEARS to protect "people's children," that becomes a vote getter. Not to mention the benefits these guys/gals get from getting published/recognized/tenured.
Does the Nobel Peace Prize for algore ring a bell?
I'd say self-interest is apparent on both sides of this argument. If you are playing stupid, stop wasting my time.
Quote:
|
I particularly like your extensive use of enlightened terminology like “fudged the data” and “heresy” and “repudiated” and “damning” and “indictment” and “manipulating the facts” and “political agenda” …. A sure sign of open mindedness.
|
I believe those adjectives apply to Mann. I hope you aren't trying to tell me that a known democrat who has peer review done only by like-minded people, uses statistics--yet doesn't interact with statisticians, takes readings from official sites like PAVEMENT that is going to be statistically hotter than surrounding areas, shouldn't be suspect?
Check this out:
Climate Change Science
Check out how different the shape of the graph looks when it's corrected.
It also has a nice summary of the findings of McKitrick, McIntyre, and Holland. It states that the Wegman report stated
Quote:
|
we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling
|
Quote:
Regarding Wegman:
His conclusion about the appropriate use of centered/non-centered statistical bias seems to add value. There s/b as much shared expert consultation between the disciplines as provides value. But, importantly, you continue to ignore that the proper application of Wegman’s statistical recommendation makes virtually no difference to the results published by MBH98. The “hockey stick” result has been confirmed by Nature, NAS, and others.
|
Friend, I can't believe you expect anyone to believe this. So let me get this straight: Bad methods + correct result = Good Science?
As my link points out:
Quote:
Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports.
David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland's paper - "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey Stick' Affair and its Implications" published by "Energy & Environment", October 2007 here.
David Holland says "it is scandalous that the WGI Chapter 6 authors ignored most of its [NRC Report] substantive findings. Despite the clear analysis in Wegman et al. showing the lack of independence between the various temperature reconstructions, the authors of AR4 WGI Chapter 6 persisted with their reliance on a “spaghetti” diagram of reconstructions in Figure 6.10(b) to continue to justify the claim that “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.”
|
Quote:
|
His comment re: separation of functional duties is valid and basic, although the functional duties were largely separated in the MBH work. The participation of outside disciplines, i.e. statisticians, helps all involved.
|
The question, of course, is why didn't he do this originally? Why did he put up such a monster fuss about releasing the data? I believe he eventually released data. But, why not disclose immediately?
You have to admit there should be some healthy suspicion about a guy who relies on statistics, gets the methods wrong, and then chafes at full disclosure.
For you, imagine if it was George Bush?
Quote:
His point re: the data used doesn’t seem all that valid. All are attempting to interpret patterns based on the full set of available data.
What motive does the left have to “drive the science”? What agenda are you talking about? Again, the science itself is not political – the movement of the implications of science into the policy arena is totally political.
|
I've already addressed this. I believe you know, and are just being obtuse.
Quote:
|
Thus peer review, and if Wegman’s participation/conclusions help nudge the review process to be more thoroughly executed, great.
|
Even if it throws more doubt on your stated beliefs?
Quote:
|
Yes, we know you pay little attention to who’s pushing/spinning FUD at every opportunity. Re: me cherry picking-data: BS. Where?
|
Besides acknowledging Wegman's point about greater statistician involvement, you've refused to acknowledge concerns raised by others you view as tainted.
The very definition of cherry-picking.
Quote:
|
SoF is the prime example of you not understanding the difference. I linked the analysis of subject experts who read the book and pointed out specific instances of misleading information.
|
Yet, I've linked subject experts that agree with the book. You chose not to do your own thinking. If in doubt, why not read the book?
Besides, your experts weren't able to answer all of SOF charges or concerns.
That alone, in the interest of intellectual honesty and erudition, should have driven you to the bookstore.
Yet, what did you choose to do?
You didn't.
Quote:
|
I don’t need to read the book to verify that. As a matter of fact, you’re the perfect example of reading a book containing high technical content while not having the benefit of full context on which to draw and make sound judgment … Result: Your thinking was warped by false “enlightenment”.
|
Doesn't it feel a LITTLE strange to castigate ME when you didn't even read the book? Talk about not having the "full context" from which to speak.
Quote:
|
… yet it's me who's scratching my head at your blatant hackery.
|
It's because you haven't given your brain a chance.
Quote:
|
No, poly, the discussion isn’t closed but I’d bet you haven’t bothered to look at the past discussion threads.
|
You are correct, I haven't However, my go to move is always to discuss things with the benefit of more information. Example: Hollands 2007 paper.
Quote:
|
I do dismiss known corporate front groups whose goal is to protect vested interests in the status quo and whose past work has been proven intentionally misleading/inaccurate.
|
Yet, you swallow flawed methodology by known democrats without questions. HMMMMM. You don't even bother to read things for yourself.
Quote:
|
Re: SoF, I linked experts on the science who recognized several individual misrepresentations of the science – there was no new work/science presented. But I guess that has you stumped.
|
As I've indicated, your experts have their own "misrepresentations" to answer for. I'm not dismissing their concerns. I wish you could say the same.
RCMB Donor (only) Features:
I guess you were wrong about Jack. But it was worth a try.
