Slashdot Mirror
Climate Journal Publishes Referees' Report In Response To "Witch-Hunt" Claims
Sockatume (732728) writes "The resignation of Prof. Lennart Bengtsson from an anti-global-warming think tank has triggered widespread outrage in the British tabloids, with the University of Bristol Professor blaming his departure on a 'witch-hunt' environment amongst climate scientists and the rejection of one of his papers. The UK's Times quotes a passage from the reviewer comments in support of this, in which it is claimed that the paper was rejected for being 'unhelpful to their cause.' In response, that journal's publisher has taken the rare step of publishing the referees' report in full. The report describes Bengtsson's paper as a 'simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al [data sets], combined with the statement they they are inconsistent,' 'where no consistency was to be expected in the first place' and therefore is not publishable research. The referee adds a number of possible areas of discussion which would allow Bengtsson to make the same data into a publishable paper, but warns that publishing it in its current state 'opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media.'"
Did you not read the part of TFS where it said "oversimplified"?
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
And the National Review is calling it McCarthyism.
Sorry, but refusing to provide a public forum for crackpots is not a witch-hunt, or McCarthyism. It's science. The journal didn't publish the paper because the referee said it was an unsalvageable piece of crap, which is precisely how peer review is supposed to work.
Say hi to all our friends at the API, will you?
I mean, at the end of the day, it seems like the only people who actually care about this guy or his paper are the people who work for Rupert Murdoch. It's sort of like the constant investigations into Benghazi (also spearheaded by News Corp).
I wouldn't call the Daily Telegraph a tabloid.
The blowhard who makes a big deal about an academic paper being rejected during the process of peer review... ... or the smug ideologue who dismisses ideas that might be dangerous to the cause.
Oh wait, they're both European? Right, both then.
You must be from the American Petroleum Institute...
Ah yes, nothing like an ad hominem attack to soundly refute a claim.
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
It is not out of context. The complaint from the referee if you read the complaint is that it was simplistic.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
yes, it was intended to be out of context
my point was that comparing climate science to eugenics is a vast (and incorrect) oversimplification
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
If they deny the facts on the ground, then yes.
"Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form." - http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Their is no incentive to agree to AGW, because when you do they will rise taxes for "GLOBAL WARMING"...
Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Seeing as they are not denying the theory of general relativity: no.
Nobody said the science is settled. But when the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that there isn't something to what they're saying, or worse, claiming that that large majority is an argument against what they're saying is anti-intellectual.
In other words. Grow the fuck up. The universe doesn't owe your ideology any favors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And what exactly was the poster's legitimate point? It was inflammatory and outright wrong.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
yes, it was intended to be out of context
my point was that comparing climate science to eugenics is a vast (and incorrect) oversimplification
True. Thought you were referring to the story and not the GP post's use of more than a bit of hyperbole.
I read an interview of him, and the rejection of the paper was a small part of his complaints. He is basically saying that anyone who questions anthropogenic global warming dogma is ostracized. This is the basis of McCarthyism and witch hunts. It also questions the foundation of the global warming "consensus" so often cited. The fact is that questioning orthodoxy is part of the scientific process. Ironically then, those who attempt to ostracize global warming skeptics for being "anti-science" are the ones themselves being anti-science.
What memo? That AGW is real, that three centuries of barfing millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a climate-neutral activity? That memo?
Yes, I think he's got it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
ÃoeSummarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.Ã
At least climate science journal publishers are now acknowledging that in *their* interpretation of the word 'science', the proper role of an article reviewer includes 'managing skepticism of the industry'.
Has this been openly stated before? Because as a scientist, it's incredibly shocking.
The science is settled
He also said the Arctic would be ice-free by now.
FTFA: The Daily Mail, much loved for its objective reporting on climate change (and other stuff)
And just prior to that: Rupert Murdoch apparently trying (and failing) to look as harmless as possible.
And: Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again - as usual, it's Big Oil that's set to benefit, not the public
Self-introspection isn't the Guardian's strong suit, is it?
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you.
[/quote]
Doesn't happen to anti-scientific people. I know that happen to climate scientists.
[quote]
Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published.
[/quote]
Doesn't happen in the west. In fact those "contrary views" are frequently printed in the press and promoted by politicians.
Scientists instead look at the facts.
[quote]
Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
Very sciency.
You wouldn't recognize a science if it painted itself purple and danced naked and screamed "SCIENCE!!!".
Sadly I'm currently out of moderator points so I'll post this instead.
From the reviewers: "The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.
The finding of differences between the three “assessments” and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.
The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.
What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences." - http://andthentheresphysics.wo...
Decades from now the leading scientists who are called "deniers" will be given National Medal of Science...if the denier is correct...
Who cares what Al Gore said ? He's not one of the scientists.
The original article has the affiliation wrong; he is at the University at Reading, not the University of Bristol.
He's at Reading, not Bristol. To be fair they're on the same train line.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Your example of the problems of climate science is climate scientists correcting Al Gore? Isn't that exactly what you want climate scientists to do in a healthy environment where the science decides the issues?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you.
I don't know if you've ever participated in a scientific debate with scientists but this happens regardless of what is being discussed. Some of the nastiest fights I've seen are between scientists about the most trivial of questions.
Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published.
Correlation != causation. Getting a paper published in a prestigious journal isn't easy in the first place. From what I've seen most contrary views like AGW and creation science are not published because they are contrary. They are not published for a variety of reasons including errors, lack of innovation, lack of basic science, etc. For example if you wanted to publish a paper about T-Rex being a carnivore it would probably be rejected because that is rather old news. Now if you found evidence that T-Rex may have had dangerous pathogens in the saliva (like the Komodo dragon) which made it a more dangerous predator, that would be something worthy of publishing.
In this case, the referees noted the deficiencies and suggested corrections to make the paper more publishable. That does not sound like they were opposed to contrary views at all. But being contrary or not, the referees still have to enforce standards of science.
Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
First when have the AGW and creationists every been quiet? Second, being louder does not help your cause when it comes to science. Having evidence helps your cause. Here is the one thing people don't understand about scientific consensus: Getting a vast majority of scientists to agree on anything is a big deal. It means scientists fighting from opposing sides have settled on the matter.
For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was high theoretical when it first came out and hard to test even though it solved certain problems like the precession of Mercury. It required using a solar eclipse before some scientists began to think that it might be not just theoretical. Over the decades different experiments have verified that Einstein was right. No one doubts the validity of it today.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
NPR apparently cared at the time, along with just about every other traditional media outlet. And the people who saw his movie. And the people who invited him to speak to congress. He was the #1 spokesman for global warming just a few years ago. Did you forget?
...but enough about the conservative press.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Tabloid press is, well... tabloid.
Is an anti-global-warming think tank a think tank opposed to the warming of the globe, or is it a think tank opposed to belief that the globe is warming?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
Which nasty exclusionary tactics? Your coworkers and friends ostracising you because you're joining an organisation that exists to undermine their life's work? That's what happens when you get in bed with a widely-despised organisation.
A paper not being published because it's bad? That's science, baby.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I think this is a bit oversimplified... I'd like to expand it to reflect what the referee stated....
When the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that they're incorrect without rigorous application of the scientific method but instead just making vague claims of overlap and inconsistency regarding the models you don't support and stating that the results don't line up with your preferred model, is not legitimate science. Legitimate politics, yes.
Science works by taking the accepted model and proving where it fails by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The method he was using in his paper is closer to using the Bible to prove that the world is flat when the prevailing theory is that it is a somewhat squished and misshapen globe.
Mind you, the world MAY be flat, but to prove that, you'd have to show where the prevailing models fall down, and show how your own model stands up where those others fail. Qualitative AND quantitative, people. He seemed to be flip-flopping between the two from the report.
Nobody said the science is settled.
You have got to be fucking kidding. If there was the ability to search through the text of all the slashdot comments, you would be overwhelmed with the AGW Crowd claiming, "The science is settled".
This rates right up there with "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" or "You can keep your plan".
You people are fucking pieces of work.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
No. I was directly refuting "Nobody said the science is settled". It's not an example of anything other than that.
No, I didn't forget. I don't live in the US, so I haven't seen much of Al Gore's stuff here. I mostly read about Al Gore from deniers. Funny that he's invited to speak to congress, when he's not a scientist/expert on the matter.
The science of eugenics is sound.
The political/social issues with it are legion, but the science is simple evolution.
The science on the Standard Model isn't settled, but that hardly means the Standard Model is wrong or falsified. It means it is incomplete. Not having an absolutely perfect theory (if such a thing is even achievable) does not mean the theory you have lacks all utility. There is a great deal of evidence for AGW. Is it complete, is it settled? No, but then again, neither is any scientific theory. Why does anthropogenic climate change receive this kind of special treatment.
Oh that's right, because someone stands to lose money, and, heaven forbid, people might have to change their behaviors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Within the scientific community, consensus is meaningless. Outside this community, where non-scientists have to make decisions based on science, scientific consensus is the best tool we have.
Who cares what NPR says. A great deal of information by the actual researchers is out there, so quit fixating on public figures and media outlets, and get the information from the horse's mouth. Heck, I don't even read SciAm anymore because it's become more of a science journalism rag, and I'd rather read what the scientists themselves say, whatever the particular field of research is.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As long as the supporters are convicted of crimes against humanity.
Step 1: Systematically conduct flawed studies, search for like-minded or easily convinced people to side with you,, and threaten people who disagree with you.
Step 2: Attempt to get your flawed and subjective contrary views published as scientifically sound.
Step 3: When people decide to reject your articles based on flawed methods, claim conspiracy.
Sadly, both the parent's 3-step plan and this one are used constantly... mostly in politics, but increasingly in "scientific" communities.
Earth's climate is hardly the only complex system that we study.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Except the idea that most climate scientists favor the AGW hypothesis isn't even true.
The source of that meme is a paper lead by John Cook, who performed a meta-analysis of several thousand climate science papers, measured using the most embarrassingly confirmation-bias infected thought systems.
It's little better than a paper trying to prove that the Earth is only around 4000 years old and that Christ loves you. Among the several faulty assumptions: any paper just *talking* about gasses playing a role in climate behavior, but making no specific claims or mentions about climate change or AGW, in Cook's opinion automatically equates as full support for the AGW hypothesis.
Read it yourself and see if you can spot the logical errors:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...
Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
For the most part, no, because they recognize that relativity already explains a large number of observations. If they succeed in finding a fault, then any theory that supersedes relativity would still have still have to reproduce those observations, and reproduce relativity in an appropriate limit.
There are a select few however that would (and in a case two have) gotten the label of relativity deniers because they reject various experiments already done. They are not out there running new experiments looking for detailed faults in the theory, but instead had a theory the proposed years ago and then come up with some superficial reason to reject any new observation that agrees with their theory.
The research itself was called 'simplistic' as well.
It is not that science is rejecting scepticism. Heck, scepticism is fundamental to science. The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature. If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature. That is no simple feat.
That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate. I'm sure that some sceptics are, particularly when it comes to critiquing particular pieces of evidence. On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.
ONE scientists saying something in a private email == all of scientists to you? Even if Michael Mann actually did everything, everyone accused him of doing (which 6 separate investigations cleared him of doing), he does not represent thousands of scientists.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Overwhelming concensus? What overwhelming consensus?
Oh, you mean the thesis done by a pro-AGW masters student where an optional survey was held on an AGW website, that was deliberately misleading in its wording, and when the desired outcome of a consensus was not reached, fields of science most likely to believe in non-anthropogenic causes (such as meteorology and astronomy) were excluded until a consensus was reached, even though it included the opinion of many non scientists and ultimately only included the opinion of those who had a published paper on climate change (because as we all know publications are open to unpopular anti-AGW papers...LOL), and the thesis was reviewed by exactly one person, her pro-AGW professor, even though time and time again real surveys have shown that no such consensus exists and belief in majority AGW hovers around 50% at best?
That overwhelming consensus?
Getting a paper published in a prestigious journal isn't easy in the first place. From what I've seen most contrary views like AGW and creation science are not published because they are contrary. They are not published for a variety of reasons including errors, lack of innovation, lack of basic science, etc. For example if you wanted to publish a paper about T-Rex being a carnivore it would probably be rejected because that is rather old news. Now if you found evidence that T-Rex may have had dangerous pathogens in the saliva (like the Komodo dragon) which made it a more dangerous predator, that would be something worthy of publishing.
The funny thing is that some of the most prestigious journals are also some of the places where it is easier to let contrary or extraordinary paper get through. They became prestigious in part by publishing ground breaking papers, which may have been controversial at the time but turn out to be true. As a result, they sometimes take risks with letting in papers they think might do that, a high risk approach for higher gains. The ground breaking papers tend to be remembered better than the ones that were wrong, although some more careful analysis can pick up on such biases or issues (or occasionally a single outrageous paper that gets through and gets a lot of attention). That said, they still push hard for quality, so crap papers, right or wrong, will have trouble. Crap still gets through and good papers get left out though, as some reviewers still are bad, and the author and/or editor don't handle it right.
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
That's absurd circular logic. How was consensus reached? Was it reached because the evidence supported it? In your statement, you've already declared that consensus is meaningless because of exclusionary tactics yet have to provide that it is actually happening. I can say the same thing that that the reason polar bears haven't attacked me yet because of this magical rock I have. I'll sell it to you for $1000 or 900 Euro.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Absolutely not. But you can see that there are people who deny relativity. Can't you see the difference between scientists who perform experiments to check relativity to these folks who simply deny the evidence?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
They do the same thing to creationist research! These so-called "scientists" just don't like having their dogma challenged! It's a conspiracy!
You do realize that you're doing GP's Step 1 there? He was talking about gaining concensus, not about advancing science, but sitll, you did step 1 there.
As I always suspected, AGW is a cause, not a hypothesis, let alone an actual scientific theory.
I expect to see donation boxes to appear on the desk of every senator and representitve which pleads "think of the children of wealthy corporate executive beachfront property owners" where they can insert their proposed amendments.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
An article about censoring climate discussion on a board that censors anti-warmist comments. The irony runs deep with this one.
Too bad about the nasty exclusionary tactics then.
The arctic is not yet ice-free, but it's getting there. If you would like to look at the raw data, I suggest Arctic Sea Ice News from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
But when the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that there isn't something to what they're saying, or worse, claiming that that large majority is an argument against what they're saying is anti-intellectual.
This is a dangerous position to take. 60 years ago the overwhelming majority of geologists considered the idea of plate tectonics to be nonsense. Within the span of 20 years (probably less), the entire scientific community shifted from one side of the argument to the other.
Science, by its very nature, is wrong most of the time. That's why we keep doing it. Disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of experts in a field is not anti-intellectual, it's how you make progress.
If that's what you got then you need to read it again. First of all the methodology used was oversimplified. I don't know a lot about the ranges but my understanding is that by using one basic equation was too simplistic. Also the authors didn't describe why they used this approach. There may be plausible reasons to do so but they authors did not elaborate. Lastly the innovation was low meaning they've seen many papers on this before and this new one does not add anything new. Pointing out errors was not the problem; being the umpteenth one to do so but with a flawed approach is the problem.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And?
People who are not scientists often use words in one way that have a very different meaning than what the words mean to scientists. If that's your complaint, and what gives you your hard on for denying the science... you're an idiot. Grow the fuck up, and try to become a useful member of the discussion. Gore was a mouthpiece, not much more; he was concerned about what was happening enough that he gave his time to try to make other people aware, and people recognized his face.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Sadly I am starting to think that this is the norm. In Gary Taube's "Good Calories, Bad Calories" he painfully details how our advice to eat a low fat high carb (meaning high sugar) diet was not really based on science. Instead it was based on scientist bulling opponents to force through their flimsy hypothesis. Opponents could not get funding or publish and if they did they did not do it again. It became politics. I see the same phenomenon playing out in global warming.
The CO2 was in the atmosphere to begin with. Plus the global climate was arguably better when it had more carbon.
There were no errors. The authors were saying "This apple is not like this orange!", even though such a comparison is meaningless. But you do prove the reviewers right. They predicted that "Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side."
The CO2 from coal, oil and other fossil fuels was already in the atmosphere? Really? Wow! I don't know whether you're trying to be funny, or are just plain stupid.
And can you define "better" here?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Still being stupid as fuck i see.
This dipshit wasn't bullied or threatened or anything else. His worthless piece of shit article he wrote was denied publication because it was a worthless piece of shit article. Science journals try not to print worthless piece of shit articles..... even though i understand that's the only kind you seem to prefer; that says a lot more about your useless fucking worldview of wanting to be a fucking stupid idiot than it does about a science journal upholding high standards. As for a consensus... there is one, whether your butthurt that 97% or so of these very highly educated people think your a fucking idiot or not. If you don't know the science, your opinion means nothing, regardless of how big an egotistical little twat you are.
You want to be useful to the discussion? Quit being a twat.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
How about these guys who suggest that there is a big liberal conspiracy promoting heliocentrism while (they say) the science has shown it to be false for over 100 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... . Are they modern day "Galileo's" fighting the good fight or are they deniers?
"Better" or "worse" overall isn't even the most important factor. "Different" is bad for our civilization and the planet's wildlife (which would have to evolve about 10,000x faster to adapt).
If, for the sake of argument, tomorrow we found out that AGW was indeed a carefully choreographed international hoax, and the climate changes were completely natural, do you know what the correct course of action would be?
To change not a damn thing about what we've been working towards. To continue reducing CO2 emissions and work toward sequestration. The only thing that would change is that we'd consider the effort an act of geoengineering.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Countering the alarmism is not "denying the science".
There is no reasoned debate in the forums of /. anymore (it was rather sparse to start with). Everyone is either a climate Nazi or fucking stupid, depending on which side you are on. I give up on humanity, or at least the nerd subbranch represented here.
Yes, in order to form oil, fossil fuels and coal, it had to be tied up in plants ... and plants got it from the air, so at one point it most certainly WAS in the air ... or are you just plain stupid?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
This is an absurd exaggeration that relies on a very dubious definition of the word "wrong". Is Newtonian Mechanics wrong? Strictly speaking, I suppose so, as it does not adequately explain the full range of observations, and in some cases does indeed get the answers wrong. But if you look at Newtonian mechanics as simply a simplified extrapolation of General Relativity that applies to non-relativistic equations, it still works very well; well enough to launch probes to Mars or the outer reaches of the solar system, and useful enough for many ordinary physics problems.
Yes, certain theories, like the steady state theory of the universe, have been falsified, but they certainly weren't falsified by crap papers. But, by and large, not many scientific theories are out and out falsified, so your use of the word "wrong" is simply hyperbolic.
No one says consensus means the end of research in a field, and no one says that consensus cannot be wrong. Indeed, consensus is often a target for scientists, which is why, for instance, even though the Standard Model has been a highly successful theory, particle physicists are desperate to peer beyond it to find new physics. And when that happens, the Standard Model still won't be "wrong", it will simply be subsumed into some larger theory.
All the evidence we have points to CO2 emissions over the last three centuries leading to climate change that cannot be explained by non-anthropogenic processes. We have theories to explain it, that no one believes are complete or the final word, but there is a sufficiently high degree of agreement between models and via different lines of evidence that it is not unreasonable to say with a high degree of certainty that there are man-made factors contributing to current observations, and then continued CO2 emissions will accelerate this process. The exact degree degree to which emissions can be attributed is a matter of debate, but very few climatologists argue with the core claims of AGW. Even worse for the skeptics is that every time they claim to find the smoking gun, it turns out to be their own camp playing rhetorical tricks, outright lying, or in this particular case, trying to publish a crappy paper.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Could you provide citations where the only source of carbon is from the atmosphere...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a "legitimate climate skeptic." The vast majority I've dealt with are ignoramuses who don't try to answer their own questions, and when you show them the evidence they easily could have found themselves, they go into denialist lockdown mode and just say the evidence is not valid/fabricated etc. A few are just underinformed and turned off of the idea for non-scientific reasons (many of which are understandable...who wouldn't want to disbelieve what Al Gore preaches at you?)
I think even the "celebrity" "skeptics" know this but they have a vested interest in keeping the charade going
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless.
Consensus is not meaningless if it is a second order effect of the evidence for a particular theory. For example general relativity has been tested heavily and so far every piece of evidence shows that it is a very accurate model. In the face of this evidence a consensus has developed that general relativity is "correct". Consensus by itself means nothing unless it follows from the natural and proper progression of scientific inquiry.
The problem is that some people misunderstand that consensus means an agreement of opinion similar to political opinions. It means nothing of the sort in scientific circles. It means that the available evidence overwhelmingly supports a hypothesis to the degree that further disagreement would be foolish without extraordinary evidence.
Incidentally, those papers were in the next IPCC report. So what exclusionary tactics?
So you are suggesting that there is a global conspiracy among all journals to exclude contrary evidence?
It can be falsified like any other theory, by comparing it to observations. It's science, you idiot.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you believe in the biogenic oil theory (the current leading theory) that is what its supposed to have happened.
Can you provide citations where all the carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And they turned out to be crap.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Same deal for coal.
Good grief. OK, I'll provide some basic geological education to you. Coal is mainly made from fern spores. Yes, those tiny little black dots on the underside of fern leaves. Ferns get their carbon from the air. Coal seams were produced during extended periods when the earth was tropical. A typical coal seam consists of one to two hundred million years of fern spore deposits. This happened several times, until there wasn't enough CO2 in the air anymore, to sustain coal production. If you don't believe me, get a lump of coal and look at it with a microscope.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC.
We [the Independent Climate Change Email Review] conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue.
So Jones' comment, in regard to MM2004, would be troubling on its own. However, not only did he apparently lack the power to exclude the paper, he was apparently unbiased in the final comments.
The other paper referenced in Jones' quote is also discussed in the link I provided.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Well, I think this guy qualifies as a "legitimate climate skeptic" -- at least, he used to. Then he dug into the data and learned that the AGW assertions match the data. When his understanding of the facts changed, he adjusted his opinion.
Richard Muller: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
So, if you looked at the right time, you'd have seen one. I imagine there is a lesson in that, somewhere.
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here [ucr.edu] for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Other scientists in the field who hold contrary positions are not generally labeled deniers. People in the field like Lindzen, Spencer, Curry will not tell you that CO2 will have no effect, just that there are other factors that override it. They have enough knowledge to at least debate intelligently with others in the field. The real climate science deniers are those without much scientific training who think their worldview trumps science when it comes to climate change. It's a waste of time to try and debate them.
Science is never absolutely settled but that doesn't mean we should treat it as if what we know about is is useless. Holding out hope for some revolutionary overturning of science you don't like, especially with no evidence that anything like that is forthcoming, is wishful thinking.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Saying "(false)" is in itself overly-simplistic. And that is being polite.
The inconsistencies pointed out were not "false", as the reviewer himself actually stated elsewhere, if in less direct terms. Then the reviewer claims that an explanation of why the inconsistencies exist is necessary. But that is disingenuous.
(Just as an aside: if the claims were actually "false", then the reviewer would not have had to demand an explanation of the cause. Things that do not exist do not have causes.)
If one person tells me the sky is green and another that it is indigo, when observation says it is actually a light blue, it is perfectly proper in science to point out how those statements are inconsistent with each other and with observations. Making that simple point might actually be valuable to any genuine study of the phenomenon. I am not obligated in any way to postulate why those people might say those things, in the name of "good science". That might be nice, but it's not something that "good science" requires.
Basically, pointing out errors is not enough - it only makes us look bad.
Which is "basically" incorrect.
Climate science isn't some social circle. In science, pointing out other peoples' errors is an invaluable service, and advances everyone's knowledge. And that's what science is all about.
Also, it isn't required to point out why or how someone made an error. That's their problem. Simply pointing out that an error has been made, even without knowing a cause, is a valuable contribution to science.
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
This is a point that is radically misunderstood by almost all sides of the political debate around anthropogenic climate change. Think about what it implies: climate models do not predict observational reality. That, and only that, is why one cannot and should not expect a nice fit between the model and the reality.
This is OK, mind: non-predictive modelling is extremely useful, and there is very little doubt that human activity is adding about 1.6 W/m**2 to the Earth's heat budget (somewhat less than 0.5% of the total, equivalent to an orbital perturbation of about half the distance to the Moon). But climate models do not tell us in any meaningful or useful sense how the ocean/atmosphere system will respond to that additional heating.
There will be a response, but estimating its type, distribution and magnitude well enough to be considered predictive is well beyond current model capabilities. I haven't looked at AR4 or 5 code, but AR2 had approximations that made me cringe, up to and including fixing up energy conservation at the end of each time-step by adjusting cell temperatures.
Climate skeptics--the sane ones at least--are aware of this and take the strong claims of predictive power in the models with a large grain of salt. They also tend to assume that "you can't prove there will be a disaster" means "there won't be a disaster", which is utterly unwarranted.
Climate believers also ignore the poor predictivity of the models, which is unfortunate, because the logical response to that poor predictivity is to invest in robustness and flexibility rather than specific solutions, because we don't know what the specific future conditions will be.
Climate believers also undermine their case by an excessive focus on "abstinence only" policies, and are for some reason unwilling to contemplate any response to climate change that involves things like nuclear power and geo-engineering research. It's almost as if they think the climate-driven destruction of civilization is such a huge issue that we must be willing to do anything to stop it... except change anyone's mind on the relative value of nuclear energy.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Can you provide citations where all the carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere.
You could even find this out by watching Fox, these days.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
and the mods are nut. Guy has a right to his opinion, what do I care, but modding head-in-the-sand denial as insightful is ludicrous.
To be more specific -- in a way its kinda nice to see posts like this. No offense to Kohath intended. But the moderation is simply wrong.
Nasty exclusionary tactics that don't work (every time) are still nasty and exclusionary.
It isn't even that they need extraordinary evidence. Ordinary evidence would do just fine. But creating strawmen to demolish is not a rebuttal of actual science and that is the issue here. What is really sad is the part where the "bias" shows and is trotted out by deniers is true. He would've been remiss to omit it because it is a negative. All the referee did was acknowledge the political reality of the entire point behind the paper.
Its like being accused of bias when rejecting a paper that uses phrenology as proof that that whites are smarter than blacks due to greater cranial capacity because you point out that, in addition to being flawed and incorrect, it will just be used to support a racist agenda.
"Nobody said the science is settled."
yes they have; time and time again, particularly around the al gore super hero era. just isn't quite as popular now as predictions haven't panned out ~1:1.
I mean, the phrase "the science is settled" is trite now and has become a bit of a tongue-in-cheek joke.
You can't have an inconsistency if no consistency was to be expected. His paper was comparing apples to oranges and then implying that there was some inconsistency because the apples were not like the oranges. That is not an inconsistency, although the reviewer pointed out that it would be interesting to investigate why the apples are not like oranges.
Same AC as you replied to (and I now realize my comment looks horrible, I should proofread more closely when using a phone keyboard, but I'm lazy about fixing random forum comments).
I was referring only to researchers I've seen show up to conferences and talks, not more extreme types on Youtube (which I am thankful for not having spent time researching in depth...). There are several, professional and well trained physicists that deny general relativity or even special relativity. Of the ones I'm familiar with, they are older, spent most of their life doing research in a completely different field of physics, but still show up to various GR related talks to make a token statement, "But there is not any proof of GR." When shown various large studies of the effects of GR, their arguments sometimes break down to, "Well, they must have calibrated their instruments incorrectly," or attribute effects to something else that doesn't come close to matching the observations.
Unfortunately it would probably be helpful to let new people at such talks or conferences know about them, as instead they can derail a talk into pointless, off-topic arguments any time some new presenter shows up without much experience at politely deferring difficult questions.
I'm sure I could find all kinds of things out by watching Fox. At the best of times, I ignore science journalism, and I'd no more go to Fox for science reporting than I'd go to Stormfront for race relations.
By cite I mean actual published work; journals, primary literature, you know, where actual scientists report their work, and not some journalist, blogger or columnist who is either posting shit due to his ideological leanings, or because he's just simply a moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It isn't even that they need extraordinary evidence. Ordinary evidence would do just fine. But creating strawmen to demolish is not a rebuttal of actual science and that is the issue here. What is really sad is the part where the "bias" shows and is trotted out by deniers is true. He would've been remiss to omit it because it is a negative. All the referee did was acknowledge the political reality of the entire point behind the paper.
Its like being accused of bias when rejecting a paper that uses phrenology as proof that that whites are smarter than blacks due to greater cranial capacity because you point out that, in addition to being flawed and incorrect, it will just be used to support a racist agenda.
Apparently you should have stayed in bed today.
I'm sorry. What the fuck does Al gore have to do with anything? I realize he made a movie seven or eight years ago about AGW, but so what? I haven't watched, have no intention of watching it, and actually read what scientists say, because, you know, I'm actually interested in understanding theories rather than finding convenient stramwen to attack.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually, climate change skeptics publish in mainstream journals all the time. There's always loose threads you can pull at.
For example RW Spencer is an evangelical Christian who believes that climate change would contradict God's will. Yet he still gets published in mainstream journals.
This demonstrates the extreme open-mindedness of science, when compared to virtually any other field of human endeavor. Yes, the process is slanted in favor of the prevailing wisdom, but people who disagree with the majority opinion aren't ostracized or prevented from publishing, no matter *why* they believe what they do. Scientists believe things for all kinds of un-scientific reasons: aesthetics, hunches, even personal dislike for other scientists. Religion isn't any less scientific than any of that stuff, but you leave that stuff in the locker room when you're on the playing field, so to speak.
Naturally people whose papers get rejected by reviewers think the referees were unfair. But it's not like *other* skeptics can't get their papers published; they just have to play by science's rules.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years. The ecosystem had time to adjust. In the cycle of ice ages we've had lately CO2 in the atmosphere would drop to 180 ppm at the height of the glaciations and rise to around 280 ppm during the interglacial periods. That 100 ppm rise took 10,000 years or more. The ecosystem had time to adjust. Since the start of the industrial revolution less than 300 years ago we've been burning fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate. In 1830 the CO2 level was still about 280 ppm. Now in 2014 it's around 400 ppm. That's an increase of 120 ppm in less than 200 years. If we took 10,000 years to raise the CO2 levels to 400 ppm it wouldn't be that much of a problem. It's the rate of change that is the majority of the problem.
You are aware that plants get virtually all of their carbon from the atmosphere, right? Even plants like corn, which actually is notable for getting a measurable amount from the soil?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
climate models do not predict observational reality
Models are projections, not predictions. They project what would happen under specific circumstances. They cannot predict when a volcano will erupt, but can help us understand how the climate will respond if one does. In reality, we cannot predict how much CO2 we will emit, or how much aerosols, or whether La Ninas will dominate the next decade. But we can project what will happen for each scenario. You shouldn't presuming that the model for one scenario should give the same results as a model for another, but investigating how and why they differ would be useful. That was the reviewers point.
Gore never said the Arctic would be ice free by now. The closest thing I've ever seen to him saying that is he commented that a study by the US Navy reported the Arctic could become functionally ice free sometime between 2017 and 2024. Note that Gore was merely repeating what the study said. If you can cite an actual quote by Gore where he said the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 I'll eat my hat.
"Consensus" simply identifies where the burden of proof lay. It is not a barrier to new ideas.
Examples:
(1) The geosyncline theory was replaced by plate tectonics.
(2) We used to think passing a black hole event horizon was a one way trip for matter/energy; now we think black holes evaporate.
(3) We used to think DNA to RNA information transcription was one way; then we discovered retroviruses.
The idea that "consensus" is just scientific priggery is ridiculous. Scientists *want* consensus to be overturned. New ideas are what make science interesting, but a new consensus only meaningful if the standards of disproof for the old consensus are high. Otherwise a change on scientific consensus wouldn't be *progress*, it would be *fashion*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, I disagree with that. Science is normatively inductive, and that often makes it possible for a relatively small amount of data to disprove a hypothesis that has a large amount of data backing it.
Skepticism of AGW theories is very healthy. However denial based on ideology is not.
Unfortunately we have more of the latter than the former.
... and the same tiny, insignificant island.
And yet both of those papers did get referenced in the IPCC report. That cuts into the argument that contrarian papers can't get published, doesn't it?
I mean, what are the odds that science could be wrong about a staggeringly complex physical system which cannot be studied in isolation?
Science is generally not amenable to binary right/wrong judgements. It's more about how well your science models the physical reality you are studying. If climate science contrarians want to discredit the current theory it's not enough to just take pot shots at it trying to tear it down. You come up with something that models the climate better than the current theory.
But there appears to be no firm line in the sand here. Those ideologically opposed to AGW frequently try to use what at least sound like scientific arguments to attack the theory. The sad fact is that in many cases they're using similar attacks that have been used by Creationists in the past to attack biology, genetics, geology, cosmology and any other theory that challenged their ideologically-driven beliefs.
Beyond that, to be skeptical of any theory, you have to understand the theory, and the data that purports to support the theory. When you get a dozens of posters making claims like "it hasn't warmed in 17 years", you're simply not dealing with people who have the faintest idea what they're talking about. That's not even dealing with the people who go on about the "church of AGW" and "AGW is going to be demolished any day now" (these are literally picked right out of the Creationist arsenal).
And then when you get the few people who do have the expertise to critique AGW, you end up with guys like Spencer, who don't actually even try to publish papers critiquing AGW, but basically are paid shills for the Heartland Institute. Bengtsson is in the real minority, in that he actually tried to publish a paper, albeit a very poor paper, so I guess you have to give him points for that. But, considering he is a publishing researcher, I think you have to start wondering if he did this intentionally so that denialist newspapers like the Telegraph could claim "You see, the AGW crowd stifles dissent!" Again, this similar trick has been used a very few times by Creationists/IDers (the Sternberg-Myer affair, where a pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design paper did get published in an obscure journal). It gets a great deal of press, of course, and now Bengtsson's crap paper will be brought up by every pseudo-skeptic for years to come, because the one thing that is universally true of all pseudo-skeptics, whatever scientific field they're attacking, is that no attack is so bad or so debunked that it can't be dusted off and shoved and used again.
The sad fact is that it does mask the actual debates among climatologists, which are far more interesting and far more pertinent.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Exactly what the reviewers were pointing out. They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.
The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature.
The "evidence" is not particularly diverse, being limited to computer modeling of worst case scenarios. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever, that, even if human activity is affecting the climate, the affects are bad, however one defines "bad". I suppose it is true that the type of "evidence" presented by the pro-"OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" folks is mature in the sense that hucksters have been selling doomsday using "evidence" of similar weight for thousands of years.
If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature.
No they don't. Science starts with scepticism. It is the pro-"OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" folks that are trying to sell their claims without being able to accurately predict anything and yet are demanding complete upheaval of the world's political economy. The sceptics only need to highlight the weakness of the pro-"..." crowd's arguments and their very unscientific efforts to suppress dissent.
That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate.
Why is that a huge assumption? Why do you assume that the pro-"..." clowns are legit? Real scientists address sceptics and counter arguments; they don't dismiss them by claiming that they are not legitimate. Please notice that you are implicitly adopting the pro-"..." party line by suggesting that most sceptics are not legit.
On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.
Most scientists either don't think there is enough evidence to decide whether human activity is changing the climate or believe that human activity is not changing the climate. It is the pro-"OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" group that is the minority. Don't be fooled by the fact that the pro-"..." crowd gets all of the media attention (aside from ideology, the media loves a good scare story) and never forget that anyone calling themselves a "climate scientist" has profound professional and social interests in promoting the "OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" narrative.
Your comment was well put. I just replied to the wrong post :)
Not when the science is settled..
Now sit back down and watch the tube for Brittany updates.
There's just a huge problem in that the whole concept of Global Warming violates scientific principles. There's no 'theory' behind it to start with, as there's no ostensible way to reliably reproduce or invalidate the global warming concept experimentally.
It appears that the attempt is to skip the 'scientific investigation' phase and go straight to 'engineering discipline'.
Ain't my fault, I didn't pick a topic that was impossible to convert into a scientific theory.
Gore was a mouthpiece ... he gave his time to ...
... make a fuck load of money. Gore has never done anything productive in his entire life.
No he didn't: http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
The referee himself admits the models used by the client change crowd are bogus:"One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models"
As an MIT-trained PhD modeler with 60 years of experience I can recall the first law of computer/mathematical/economic models: "Give me a free hand with the assumptions and I'll produce any result you like."
People try to falsify many domain of science. But they don't go around saying the domain they want to falsify is "false" etc... If they do good science they take the hypothesis as null, then go against that and try to demonstrate it. Instead , that is mostly what we do not get from AGW denier, which attempt to bring "skepticism" about the result from AGW rather than falsify them. And tehre is a huge difference between the two.
"Nobody said the science is settled."
64 million hits on google disagree.
If there was the ability to search through the text of all the slashdot comments, you would be overwhelmed with the AGW Crowd claiming, "The science is settled".
If only there was some sort of search engine that could be used... oh wait. there is! https://www.google.ca/#q=%22th... . Huh... Looks like just the deniers pushing that meme. Science can always be overturned. Most people believe in heliocentrism. It could be overturned... but probably not by these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Wasn't there something just published about that claiming it had to do with underwater currents getting warmer and not the air temp or Co2?
WTF? Are you mad? Or drunk? The whole point of a model is to predict the future. And they can, and do, make predictions. And over time, we can see if the predictions worked.
And your biggest issue is that the model conserved energy? You do know that in the middle of a time-step, things get wonky, right? And that the modelers know this, and therefore apply some brainpower to make it work?
The early models of galaxy collision (per the Toomre brothers) were astonishingly low-res, and yet they captured some pretty subtle effects. And guess what? They had to apply fix-ups on each time-step, too!
Climate researchers have certainly put some real thought into geo-engineering. The neatest simulation was, "what happens if we try geo-engineering, and have to stop". Result: everything goes to heck, and in a hurry.
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
The phrase is "a grain of salt". Increasing the size or quantity of the salt in the phrase does not improve the phrase. In fact, that only detracts from its intended meaning. So stop fucking doing it.
Al Gore is a propaganda pusher, much like Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. His views may be based on science, but they are obviously going to be embellished for the sake of pushing an agenda. As a moderate, I avoid the propaganda and seek out reality, even if said reality is too boring or scary for the average schmo.
You can't have an inconsistency if no consistency was to be expected. His paper was comparing apples to oranges and then implying that there was some inconsistency because the apples were not like the oranges. That is not an inconsistency, although the reviewer pointed out that it would be interesting to investigate why the apples are not like oranges.
I would have to see the entire paper before I could judge. While it's not proof of anything, it does seem rather unlikely that a recognized researcher would do something quite that naive.
Until I know more about it, I still say that it sounds like the reviewer is calling the author an ignorant fool, when his past work would suggest that he's anything but.
Not every paper gets published. That is not a sign of a massive conspiracy. It's just life.
Remarkable, isn't it, that a paper like this gets rejected for flaws when a paper by Michael Mann, like the hockey stick, passes review despite the fact that it's a massive pile of statistically invalid cock.
I don't think he said it in the movie. But he certainly has elsewhere. The same with Obama. Actually, there have been quite a few politicians from countries in Europe and the US who has said the science is settled or an equivalent mem. But I believe it was Robert Watson also said the science was settled and I don't think he is just yet another politician.
But here is my grief with your comment. People who quote deny global warming do so on political grounds mostly. Quite a few of them do so specifically on the supposed consequences of it and the got to do something right now verses letting it play out. You seem to be upset that political respondents are addressing comments largely made by politicians and people pushing political ideologies. Yet your demand they do not matter because they are not scientists. So why are you refusing to ignore the political opposition to the political supporters?
It doesn't make sense to me. It's like a religious argument trying to ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew.
Exactly what the reviewers were pointing out.
No, they weren't. I can read English as well as you, conceivably even better, and that isn't what they were saying. I quote here:
"Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance."
In plain English: he did point out real errors. They don't deny that. They just don't like the way he did it.
They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.
No, they said that the errors he pointed out were not "helpful" to them, and that he did not sufficiently explain, to their taste, what the cause of the errors were.
However, that position is not a scientific one. The cause of the errors is neither his concern nor his responsibility. Pointing out the presence of errors is important. Taking an arrogant stance against apparently valid dissent is not. I repeat: this is supposed to be science, not a social club.
From TFA (2007): "Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction"
OK, it's been 6 or 7 years since then. Would you say the artic ice is substantially less, substantially more, or about the same from then?
Hint: data at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
Eyeballing the data, there's a ton of noise but there is a decent trend in there. And the data in the last 7 years doesn't look like it is violation of that trend, or the prediction voiced by Mr. Gore.
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
I quote here:
Where? No citation was given. How about looking at the actual review?
"One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
Huh. You may have quoted someone, but not someone who had read and understood the review.
I'd have a hard time identifying a legitimate climate skeptic because my background is in astrophysics rather than climatology. (Simply put, I could critque anything based upon solar flux but not much else.) That said, I have seen legitimate and illegitimate critics in terms of astrophysics. The former do a pretty good job at advancing the science, even though their message takes longer to propagate than it should. Then again, that is probably more of a defence mechanism against poor ideas than anything else. The illegitimage critics are typically ignored, and do nothing for or against the science. Then again, astrophysics is mostly apoltical, while climatology is very politicized. In that case the illigitimate critics seem to have more weight than they have earned.
But when the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction
Is completely and utterly irrelevant to science and the scientific method.
It's also the most common argument presented by the faithful.
In other words. Grow the fuck up. The universe doesn't owe your ideology any favors.
Pot, meet Kettle.
And learn the consensus has nothing to do with science.
Who is John Galt?
Everything you say about the denialist attacks on AGW is reasonably accurate. The '17 year' crowd is made up of folks that don't have the background to evaluate data, or are just liars.
However I don't think you have to understand the data that supports the theory if you find sound data that contradicts the theory. You only have to understand the theory and have good contradictory data.
As far as Spencer etc, they may be paid shills, BUT that's not a valid argument against their work. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Publications need to be evaluated on their scientific merit, period.
Let me know when Spencer actually does publish his critique of AGW. Writing oped pieces in the WSJ is not publishing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nope, they're mostly ignored.
If you want to equate "denier" with creating tests with a chance of falsifying a theory, wouldn't that then apply to most pro-AGW researchers too? That isn't the definition of a denier, that is the definition of a scientist. The denier label gets used for something more specific, a specific way of doing science badly or doing politics under the veil of being science.
Apparently journal referees care, or at least the one mentioned in the summary is concerned about misrepresentation in the media.
Anyway I think Al Gore has been a great spokesperson, but attacks from zealots have used him to damage AGW awareness for many easily swayed would-be skeptics. Since few people get their information from horses mouths, and the opinions of ignorant people still make a difference in policy (and so funding, careers, the future of the planet etc), unfortunately people have to care what public figures and media outlets say.
It was better. Just not for humans. I'm not sure why anyone is concerned with human death toll of climate change if it will bring about superior conditions for pre-Cambrian vegetation.
Not every paper gets published. That is not a sign of a massive conspiracy. It's just life.
I didn't say it was. That wasn't part of MY argument. I'm just saying that the reasons it was rejected appear to have extremely thin justification.
Where? No citation was given. How about looking at the actual review?
I was quoting the page YOU linked to. Sheesh. Didn't recognize your own citation?
What page I linked to?
You are probably the most unqualified person to judge. The fact is, "one cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
You are probably the most unqualified person to judge.
And you concluded this based on? What evidence?
The fact is, "one cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
That isn't a fact, that was a comment by a reviewer about someone else's paper. The FACTS aren't known unless and until we see the actual paper.
And you call ME unqualified to judge?
What page I linked to?
This has gotten beyond ridiculous.
If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot.
And then you talk about other peoples' qualifications?
Which link? I've posted dozens. None of them contain that quote. Surely it would be easy enough for you to include the link?
We don't need to see the paper to know whether IPCC ranges are PDFs. Obviously.
We don't need to see the paper to know whether IPCC ranges are PDFs. Obviously.
We DO need to see the paper to know whether what the reviewer said he did is what he actually did, since he is apparently denying it.
Obviously.
Do you know how to navigate Slashdot, or not?
Do you know how to view parent? All you have to do is click "Parent" under a comment to go up one level.
If you click "Parent" on my comments in THIS thread (i.e., your exchange with me), you will eventually get to a post you made that contains a link. The only post with a link to which *I* replied.
If you then follow that link, you will find the passage I quoted.
I repeat: you're a fine one to talk about others' qualifications, if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to, or in what context. I am done here. I have better things to do with my time.
He is not denying it. You think the reviewer attached the review to the wrong paper or something?
Nope. It's not there. I suspect if it was you could provide a link. Of course, this is all beside the point that your quote is disproved by the source material.
I notice that you don't use the word "denier," which so many find objectionable. I have no love for political correctness, but in this case, I believe that you managed to find an alternative word that costs us nothing to use and which may be less likely to raise presumptions of bias. So I personally plan to no longer use the offensive word "denier" in this context and, like you, will instead substitute the far more accurate word "crackpot." Thank you for your contribution.
Give you liberal heads a good bang on the wall. We aren't witch hunting them. We are moving to prosecute them. Trying to pass off "global warming" as a man made event so that you can extort money from the wealthy is capital crime. We won't stop until as many of them are in jail as it is possible to prosecute. You don't get a pass on this kind of crap.
Exactly.
Model X: "What if the future temperature increase is exponential?"
Model Y: "What if the future temperature increase is linear?"
This guy's paper: "OMG, Model X and Model Y are completely inconsistent, thus they are both bogus!"
The expected media response if the paper was published: "Climate model X and Y shown to be in error!"
Meanwhile, in the real world, the reviewer simply said the methodology in the paper was flawed, and on that basis it should be rejected unless modified to fix the flaws. That doesn't mean making it conform with the current consensus, it means fixing it to not be comparing apples and oranges and claiming there is a problem if they are different.
Get that hat on the grill.
Basically, consensus means you should expect a bigger challenge than usual if you want to overturn it. Why? Because the idea already has a lot of science behind it.
Screaming "censorship" is the last resort of the scientifically incompetent. Some people who disagree with the consensus complain about scientific "censorship", even when their paper is utter crap. Even good papers get rejected.
Real scientists don't complain about "censorship", they just get better data and re-write the paper until it does get published. There's always a journal somewhere that is interested in good, provocative, controversial papers. I've seen plenty of reviewers make comments like "This defies the consensus and I don't personally agree with the conclusion of the paper, but it's well-written and deserves to be published." So, if you can't get it published somewhere eventually, it usually means it's pretty bad and the author is too stubborn to take suggestions for improving it.
Against my better judgement I went and looked at your WUWT cite. It was just more of the same BS I've come to expect from them. As I said above Gore merely reported on research published by Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016." This article goes into it in some detail about it. I'll keep wearing my hat, thank you.
Nope. It's not there. I suspect if it was you could provide a link. Of course, this is all beside the point that your quote is disproved by the source material.
Yes, it is there, and I got there in exactly the manner I described: clicking "Parent" in this same thread until I got there.
And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page, you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread.
And I repeat: you are grossly wasting my time. I shall not help you find your own goddamned references again.
The author DID deny that the reviewer's comments were valid, and claimed that his paper was rejected because it was "unhelpful" to the cause of AGW. That's what the whole news story was about.
You're trying to tell me things that clearly contradict the printed record.
I would call your comments, in both this thread and the other one in which you have been pestering me, both examples of "denialism". In this case, you clearly denied that the author claimed what he did claim, which was the whole basis of this news story. In the other case, you denied that you linked to a page, and denied that text on that page existed, when it very clearly did exist.
And in BOTH cases, you have been wasting my time.
If you were less polite about it, I would call this deliberate trolling. By now I suspect it anyway politeness or not.
Goodbye.
And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page [ioppublishing.org], you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread.
Are you broken? Rabett.blogspot.co.uk is not ioppublishing.org. Look. This is getting beyond tedious. If you have a point to make, please make it. Otherwise please stop.
Here are the authors own words: "I do not believe there is any systematic "cover up" of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being "deliberately suppressed" as the Times front page suggests.
He expressed concern that the reviewer was biased, but never argued that he was wrong. If you can provide a quote to the contrary that would be helpful.
Gore says 5 years. He holds up five fingers. It was more than 5 years ago. He didn't say "between 2011 and 2016". Maybe his source material said that, but that didn't stop him from making the 5 year prediction.
If you guys want to stop getting called out for making exaggerated predictions that turn out to be false, then stop exaggerating. Act like scientists, not salesmen.
Well, Gore is not a scientist and I don't pay that much attention to him. (How's that for changing the subject?)
So what do scientists who work on sea ice have to say? If you look at past IPCC predictions of the evolution of Arctic sea ice you would see that they constantly underestimated how fast it would be lost. IPCC AR 4 - Chapter 10.3.3 - "Changes in Ocean/Ice and High-Latitude Climate"
You do realize that you're doing GP's Step 1 there? He was talking about gaining concensus, not about advancing science, but sitll, you did step 1 there.
Pray tell, was I ostracizing, shunning, bullying or threatening someone who disagrees with me? What was the topic I was disagreeing on? Proper methodology for conducting scientific research? Who was I targeting with my disagreement? Everyone who attempts to pass off as scientific fact that which is based on politics and subjective opinion?
Ostracizing? I think with my comment, I was including pretty much the entirety of the scientific and political communities. That seems pretty inclusive.
Shunning? I haven't gone out of my way to avoid anyone with this comment. I'm not even arguing that people with flawed arguments shouldn't be directly engaged in scientific debate as others have been recommending (that smacks of religion to me, not science)
Bullying? I don't recall standing over any politicians or scientists and demanding their lunch money (take it as a metaphor)
Threatening? I don't recall seeing any "or else" in my statements. Reprimanding, yes. I figure most people should be mature enough to take a reprimand without needing a threat to back it up.
He was talking about "consensus" through suppression/repression of dissenters. I was agreeing that this is alive and well, but that often dissenters don't have a logical leg to stand on, but claim everyone is out to get them anyway. I wasn't really talking about advancing science, but rather the politics people play to advance ideologies, and foist them off as advances in science (or dissenting ideas as missteps in science). It doesn't really matter whether the commonly held idea is right or the uncommon idea is right; if people dislike it enough to attack it based on personal feelings/motivations instead of on merits, that's not science. You can never fully separate the two, but you can at least attempt to apply bias correction based on the bias you know is there.
So no, I didn't do step 1 there, on any of the levels.
You're quite right, I don't know how that URL got in there.
Nevertheless, the point is still made: you did post the link, it was where I said it was, and the page contains the text I quoted above.
He expressed concern that the reviewer was biased, but never argued that he was wrong. If you can provide a quote to the contrary that would be helpful.
Again you are trying to prevaricate.
A claim that the paper was rejected because it was biased, is a claim that the reviewer did not reject it based on science.
Try using a little logic, rather than insisting on being such a dense hardass. Your behavior reminds me very much of someone else I know here on Slashdot.
Again you are wasting my time, just as you did in the other thread.
I am truly done with this.
Those folks who believe that AGW is all a plot by scientists to keep the research money flowing embrace a "suppressed" paper which is skeptical of AGW and says, literally, there needs to be more research on it.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
We have a nicely workable alternative mechanism for em propagation, though, the ether theory failed completely in experiments, not just missing the predicted value by some factor, and it was all or nothing, I.e. it wasn't composed of smaller well established mechanisms to the point that its existence was predicted before people looked to confirm or falsify it. Whereas AGW has no alternative theory with any predictive value whatsoever or any feasible known mechanism, does a pretty good job of predicting not just temperature but a lot of phenomena, and increasingly research is tightening up its accuracy, rather than pointing in a different direction, and is composed of so obvious and well established mechanisms that Arrhenius was able to predict it on purely theoretical grounds and calculate the basic temperature vs greenhouse gas equation which correctly fits the earth's actual temperature vs its theoretical temperature from black body radiation theory. Otherwise, good call.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
A claim that the paper was rejected because it was biased, is a claim that the reviewer did not reject it based on science.
No one claimed that the paper was biased. Please reread.
You lost me. Your first sentence admits that the link wasn't where you said it was, but that is followed with a sentence "nevertheless... it was where I said it was."
No. It wasn't. I posted a link to Rabett.blogspot.co.uk. I still have no idea where your link came from. Don't you think that your points would be better made if we knew who the heck you were quoting?
Wasn't there something just published about that claiming it had to do with underwater currents getting warmer and not the air temp or Co2?
Ohh, so Global Warming is real only if it only concerns the atmosphere and not the rest of the globe?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Thanks for providing an example for "Step 1" done by the deniers.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless.
Just like it was when the denialists first brought up the issue - that AGW wan't proven because there was no consensus.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Jane often "admits" a mistake in his first sentence, then immediately contradicts himself. It's not clear if he's genuinely this addled, or if this is just another layer of obfuscation to confuse the public. After all, either way the focus shifts from science to Jane, giving him the attention he desperately craves and producing the illusion of a debate.
No, and now I am positive you are trolling.
So, here is the truth, which you already damned well know, and deny, apparently for trolling purposes:
My first sentence was about the second link, not the first. As just about any native English speaker would easily understand.
But now YOU are admitting that you did post the link after all, which also proves you know which link I meant.
You're the one who isn't getting his argument straight, and who is by now blatantly trolling. You DO know, do you not, that deliberate trolling has been linked with other sociopathic behavior?
THE REVIEW was biased, troll.
And now I am not JUST convinced you're trolling, I think I even know who you are.
Just for your information.
Who is he?
I was quoting the page YOU linked to. Sheesh. Didn't recognize your own citation?
I said I did not and don't know what you are talking about. Then you say:
But now YOU are admitting that you did post the link after all
Are you broken?
it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
Not this one:
"it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place."
He has yet to show - or even claim that the reviewer was wrong. In fact he has been backpedaling ever since the publisher released the full review.
P.S. please be a little more introspective when you read that Chris Mooney story that you linked to above. In another thread you have spent over a dozen posts trying to claim I posted something that I did not. Anyone reading the post can clearly see that I did not post that link, but for some reason you cannot back down.
He took issue with this statement:
it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
According to the news stories, he took issue with many of the reviewer's comments, not just that one.
He has yet to show - or even claim that the reviewer was wrong. In fact he has been backpedaling ever since the publisher released the full review.
I have already explained this. If you fail to understand the simple logic that IF the reviewer rejected the paper out of bias (as Bengtsson claimed), THEN the reviewer did not reject the paper for scientific reasons, that's your problem. I have no reasonable way to help you through that.
P.S. please be a little more introspective when you read that Chris Mooney story that you linked to above. In another thread you have spent over a dozen posts trying to claim I posted something that I did not. Anyone reading the post can clearly see that I did not post that link, but for some reason you cannot back down.
I have no reason to back down, since you did in fact link to the page I referenced. Not only did I give you a link to the comment of your that contained the reference, here is a screenshot of your comment.
You are simply denying reality. And I clearly explained that the OTHER link I posted was an editing error. So you don't have that excuse.
Why do you continue to troll?
No, but it seems you are. You keep denying but (as I showed in that other thread you insisted on continuing), you did post the link I referred to, and I have proved it twice. So you can claim ignorance of your own comment all you like, but that makes it your problem, not mine.
Now go away. As far as I am concerned (as I clearly indicated in a previous comment) what you are doing is harassment. I shall not answer you again, regardless of whether you have (as you seem to) some kind of pathological need to have the last word even if it means blatantly lying.
blogspot.co.uk != ioppublishing.org (duh)
If you fail to understand the simple logic
What you say is simple, but not logical. It doesn't follow. Everyone has biases. It doesn't mean that nothing anybody says is right. (duh) Does my post here: http://s23.postimg.org/4f12i98... contain a link to ioppublishing.org ? No. So what on Earth are you going on about?
and, heaven forbid, people might have to change their behaviors.
I wouldn't even mention that as a possible issue. It is repeated time and time again by skeptics, but without one single shred of evidence that anyone would have to adjust their lifestyle. Oregon is at 20% renewables and my life hasn't changed one bit. Germany is way beyond that, and I don't hear anyone complaining that the government has asked them to turn off their air conditioners, etc...
Until we have an actual example of rationing or forced lifestyle change, it does a lot of harm to keep mentioning it as a possibility of tackling AGW. (In my opinion, after watching things like this: http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame , or using google scholar to search for similar studies/plans, moving off oil would be fairly easy.
My last comment to you:
Nobody else seems to be exhibiting these reading problems that you appear to be exhibiting. I would think about that a bit, if I were you.
On the other hand, since your comments have been illogical and self-contradictory, maybe thinking about it would not help you at all.
I also think Layzej never posted the link to ioppublishing.org that you repeatedly claimed he did. He linked to a completely different site.
And I repeat that he, and you, are both very much mistaken. There were 2 exchanges going on between he and I, in different threads (which he started, not me).
I clearly explained that the link to ioppublishing.org was an editing mistake, and it was only the other link I was referring to. The other link -- the one that was not an acknowledged editing mistake -- was in fact the same page he linked to, and the source of the quote I posted.
If that was lost in the confusion to other readers between the 2 threads, that was his fault, not mine. This whole exchange has been a rather blatant attempt to troll me.
You can see that for yourself if you go back up to his original comment, then read further down and follow both threads.
So, you were wrong to repeatedly say he linked to ioppublishing.org.
So, you were wrong to repeatedly say he linked to ioppublishing.org.
I did not "repeatedly" say he linked to ioppublishing.org. I erroneously stated it ONCE, then explained that it was an editing mistake. All other references were to his original link.
Period. End of story. As I already explained elsewhere in this thread, if you bother to read it.
And I now suspect that you are in fact the same troll posting under AC. You, or he, or whatever alternate personality you happen to be living in now, need to learn how to read.
You first quoted ioppublishing.org here. After Layzej politely asked for a citation, you could've simply linked to ioppublishing.org, but instead you said "I was quoting the page YOU linked to. Sheesh. Didn't recognize your own citation?"
Then you continued, saying "If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot."
You kept going: "you're a fine one to talk about others' qualifications, if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to, or in what context. I am done here."
And you still kept going: "Yes, it is there, and I got there in exactly the manner I described: clicking "Parent" in this same thread until I got there. And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page, you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread. And I repeat: you are grossly wasting my time. I shall not help you find your own goddamned references again."
That was you repeatedly saying he linked to ioppublishing.org. Erroneously included the link once doesn't explain why this entire "conversation" revolved around you refusing to give a link for your quote which indeed comes from an ioppublishing.org link that Layzej never linked.
Thanks!
Interestingly the second reviewer has now released her review. She has most of the same concerns about the quality of the paper. Why would two anonymous reviews point out the same errors if these errors didn't exist in the paper? Of course, Bengtsson could just release the paper and let the community judge, but he has been backpedaling ever since the first review was released in full. He was much happier to quote mine it for the press.
Couldn't have put it better myself ;)
Since I had already explained that TWICE before, what are you thanking me for? Putting up with your BS for this long?
Long after I explained it to you, you continued to insist I did something I had not done. You continued to insist YOU had NOT done something you clearly did do.
So I am just curious why you would thank me. Sounds like more BS to me. You certainly haven't proved anything.
How long until Jane's keen scientific skillz clue him into the fact that Layzej wasn't thanking him at all?
I was thanking AC for slaying you.
This is just nuts. There was no slaying. Just trolling. It's all in the written record.
Further, I think you were thanking yourself.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, yet again.
I'll just post this again, since you so obviously have no use for reading "skillz":
http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/02/15/1852235/psychologists-internet-trolls-are-narcissistic-psychopathic-and-sadistic
Again, Jane, you first quoted ioppublishing.org here. After Layzej politely asked for a citation, you could've simply linked to ioppublishing.org, but instead you said "I was quoting the page YOU linked to. Sheesh. Didn't recognize your own citation?"
Then you continued, saying "If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot."
You kept going: "you're a fine one to talk about others' qualifications, if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to, or in what context. I am done here."
And you still kept going: "Yes, it is there, and I got there in exactly the manner I described: clicking "Parent" in this same thread until I got there. And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page, you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread. And I repeat: you are grossly wasting my time. I shall not help you find your own goddamned references again."
That was you repeatedly saying he linked to ioppublishing.org. Erroneously including that link once doesn't explain why this entire "conversation" revolved around you refusing to give a link for your quote which indeed comes from an ioppublishing.org link that Layzej never linked.
Also, there's really no need to keep implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a sociopath.
This is just nuts. There was no slaying.
It's just a flesh wound! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
By the way, Please review and you will clearly see that I never posted a link that contained your quote. Your thinking is so clouded.that you cannot and will not see any truth that obscures your world view. Even something as mundane as this. This is why they call it denial.
Here is the quote for which you provided no citation and without any indication of who had said it:
I quote here: "Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance."
You repeatedly berated me for not knowing where the heck that quote came from and claimed that it was in a link I posted. AC has a really good summary and you can clearly see that I never linked to any page with that quote: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Your thinking is so clouded.that you cannot and will not see any truth that obscures your world view. Even something as mundane as this. This is why they call it denial.
I clearly explained that the link to ioppublishing.org was an editing mistake, and it was only the other link I was referring to. The other link -- the one that was not an acknowledged editing mistake -- was in fact the same page he linked to, and the source of the quote I posted.
But your quote is from ioppublishing.org, - the link you erroneously(?) posted. It is not in the link that I posted. So what on Earth are you talking about? Honestly, if you had just cited the reference you may have had a point to make. Instead you sent me and the readers on a wild goose chase that leads to a dead end that you refuse to acknowledge. All the while berating me for not having guessed where you pulled the quote from. How could anyone have a serious conversation with you when you are willing to repeatedly assert something that is quite obviously and easily shown to be false?
And I now suspect that you are in fact the same troll posting under AC. You, or he, or whatever alternate personality you happen to be living in now, need to learn how to read.
and
Further, I think you were thanking yourself.
I am not sure what I can do for them but they are certainly fascinating.
Since you insist on nitpicking, let's set the record straight.
YOU linked to THIS PAGE.
THAT page referenced THIS PAGE.
In one of my replies, I quoted from the latter page's quote of the comments by the publishing house's Director.
You then suggested that we look at the actual review, when what I had quoted was from that page at ippublishing which does in fact contain quotes from the review itself, plus comments by the Director about the review.
And all of them supported the point I was making. While you, in turn, insisted in picking at irrelevant details about what I'd written, rather than addressing the actual points I made.
Is that accurate enough for you? Or do you want to nitpick/troll further?
Let's set the record straight: you were wrong to repeatedly say he linked to ioppublishing.org.
"If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot."
and
if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to
You posted a confused 30 message rant (all the while calling me a troll!) only to finally admit that the quote was not where you sent me looking for it. And by way of apology you suggest that I'm nit picking. Why not just cite the quote? Why should we have to go searching for it?
You then suggested that we look at the actual review, when what I had quoted was from that page at ippublishing which does in fact contain quotes from the review itself, plus comments by the Director about the review.
Of course, no one knew at the time who was quoted or in what context because you didn't cite the quote. See why that is important? See why it is probably not so horrible of me to have asked where it came from? See why it is easier for you to just post the damn link instead of making us read through piles of horse shit?
And yes, clearly the reviewers did have issues with the paper. They are spelled out in the reviews. (duh!)
Ok - try to be a bit introspective here. You quoted something that you found in a link that was referenced in another link that was posted several links up the chain - but you didn't cite the quote because, well, obviously everyone will have already followed every link tree right down to the leaf on every comment. You then went on to berate me for inquiring where the quote was from.
I don't need to "be introspective". I've already admitted to making an error. But this is all beside the larger point:
You spent many many comments picking on some minor error that I made. (It WAS minor, and you knew how it happened.) Instead of making any real point about the scientific issue I had raised.
FUD, misdirection, and ad-hominem. These are the "debate" strategies of losers who don't have a relevant, substantive argument to make.
He already answered the sliver of "scientific" issue you raised. Why did you accuse Layzej of "blatantly lying" and repeatedly berate him and imply he was a sociopath over your own minor error, rather than just posting a single link at the beginning? (No, I'm not Layzej. I'm yet another person who's sick of your vitriolic tantrums and doesn't want your slime all over my digital persona.)
You have yet to address my very first post to you (except to mock me that I didn't know where your quote came from.).
Look a little deeper. You derailed the conversation from the get go and just kept digging your heels in deeper despite the evidence being quite clear.
By the way, anyone who's interested in showing that there's no scientific consensus on AGW might want to visit Brandon Shollenberger's survey and suggest improvements. Brandon started this survey right after being threatened with a lawsuit by "Skeptical" Science's John Cook's university for disclosing leaked data.
Jane often "admits" a mistake in his first sentence, then immediately contradicts himself. It's not clear if he's genuinely this addled, or if this is just another layer of obfuscation to confuse the public. After all, either way the focus shifts from science to Jane, giving him the attention he desperately craves and producing the illusion of a debate.
Honestly, there is no point in discussing science with Jane. If we cannot agree on whether or not I posted the link she quoted from then what hope do we have with anything remotely complicated? I am deeply curious whether Jane can admit to an obvious error. The evidence is right on the page, but she still insists that up is down. It is truly fascinating!
"She"? Be careful about assuming that anything Jane says is true. He not only insists that up is down, but also insists that male is female.
You haven't addressed the substantive point that the reviews clearly find fault with the study.
Yes, I very clearly did address it, in plain English. You persist in denying reality and trolling. This is my last post in this thread.
Goodbye.
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I am truly done with this.
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I am done here. I have better things to do with my time.
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I shall not answer you again,
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
This is my last post in this thread.
Promises, promises.