Despite whatever tone you might critique from McIntyre, his takedown of Lewandowsky is clearly fact based - even if people decide to dismiss it because of their own conspiracy ideation, doesn't mean it isn't an accurate portrayal of Lewandowsky's fraud:)
If Lewandowsky's fraud gets published in Psychological Science, then indeed, peer review is thoroughly broken. Presented as a bait and switch to an ethics panel, with no controls, faked data, and poor analysis, it's like having Science present an article on creationism.
...I think what they were trying to say was "evokes", even though as written it's probably more accurate:)
invokes 3rd person singular present of invoke (Verb) Verb Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument. Call on (a deity or spirit) in prayer, as a witness, or for inspiration.
evokes 3rd person singular present of evoke (Verb) Verb Bring or recall to the conscious mind. Elicit (a response).
So, certainly, Lewandowsky's fraud papers both appealed to conspiratorial thinking to support their arguments:)
The problem here is that the conspiratorial thinking that was invoked was was on the part of Lewandowsky. Rather than taking the critiques of his abandoned first paper as legitimate, he immediately decided that anyone disagreeing with him must be part of a conspiracy against him.
My prediction - when this second paper is also taken apart as a fraud, he'll write a third one saying everyone who disagreed with his second one is part of a conspiracy of conspiritorial thinking:)
So exactly how does one eliminate a high pressure atmosphere from Venus? One way of lowering the atmospheric pressure is reducing the mass of venus (thereby having weaker gravity, and unable to hold a high pressure atmosphere), but say you managed to instantaneously precipitate half of venus's atmosphere into solid form, and reduced its atmospheric pressure by half -> wouldn't its gravity tend to move the atmosphere back into a high-pressure equilibrium with the planet?
NOAA in 2008 wrote than any observed period of statistically insignificant warming greater than 15 years was excluded by their models at the 95% confidence level.
We've seen 16 of those years now. By NOAA's own words, their model only has a 5% chance of being right anymore.
And of course, Trenberth - "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
Of course, saying that the observation of a lack of statistically significant warming over the past 16 years is very close to the "average consensus forecasts" is like saying that your personality is very close to the "average consensus horoscopes" of the last 16 years - there's no falsifiability there.
Come back and play the science game when you get some:)
Can we really say with a straight face, that our models are at all accurate? Is the blind assumption now by the Church of Global Warming that any parameter adjustments to models will be in one direction?
Will you also have an intelligent conversation about whether it is an acceptable tradeoff as a society to high capacity automobile ownership in exchange for possibly limiting the destructiveness of a future event? Nobody really *needs* a car that can carry four people, since they could always just buy two cars that carry two each, right? Certainly no private individual ever needs to own a bus, right?
While I'm certain that for certain area effect weapons one might make the case for regulation (including storage rules, and other safety that might also be applied, to say, fertilizer and gasoline), the fact of the matter is that the cat is out of the bag - you can make weapons, both targeted and area effect, no matter what the laws say. Insisting that people don't have a right to something that is trivially obtainable seems counterproductive.
And what about the guy who decides that if his magazine size is limited, he'll simply carry more guns? Shall we limit everything to a 3 round magazine, and limit everyone to a single firearm? Will that stop a murderer from getting multiple firearms?
The slippery slope on this is simply untenable. You cannot stop bad people from having guns, nor can you stop bad people from having large magazines. The laws proposed for limitations only affect law abiding citizens, who these murderers are most definitely *not*.
At the end of the day, especially given the democratization of making things with 3d models, CNC and 3d printers, the cat is out of the bag. Symbolic gestures at this point are no more effective than the TSA security theatre we all suffer through at airports.
I pretty much do nothing but sit all day, but I continue to get fitter, and healthier, with essentially a diet based on nutritional ketosis, and 30 minutes of slow strength training a week.
Learn how the human body works, and you can optimize.
Actually, wouldn't "student teacher at the university" (given the horror stories we get about grad students and the pressures put on them), give something quite similar, or even worse?
I'd also argue that even simply being a student in academia gives at least some degree of insight - certainly more than being say, a customer of a car repair joint.
Mod parent up - professors complaining that their jobs are more stressful than others are doing so without any rational basis for comparison if their academic career didn't have any gaps while they did other jobs.
Actually, I'll assert if you get services from the government those records should be public (schools, medical, other entitlements). Furthermore, if you *work* for the government (as an individual or a company), your employment/financial records should be public.
So frankly, if you're going to allow the government to track you with licenses and permits for firearms, you have to *expect* this information to be public record. Once you've given up the 2nd amendment, don't expect the 1st one to care.
Lesson to learn - maybe allowing the government to track you isn't such a great idea.
Copy paste? Afraid that your lies, misinformation and scaremongering lose their power unless they're blindly repeated?:)
The paper is referring to the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000). You tried to imply that it was referring to the underlying theory.
Your underlying theory, which can apparently survive the falsification of any individual model, is, as I have clearly stated, quite obviously non-falsifiable. Your admission of this earlier puts quite clearly your lies into contrast:)
I thought that insult would happen but I was hoping you would prove to be a better person than that.
Really, you're busy insulting someone as if they're some sort of teen misfit, and you're hoping for someone to be the better person?:)
Really, the lady doth protest too much:)
You still haven't put up or shut up, and since you pretend to be arguing from a position of authority you should.
What part of "falsifiability is required for science" don't you understand? What part about "show me a better model is simply astrology" don't you understand?
Do you simply refuse to read these points, or do you read them and don't understand them?
You: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the model, then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
Me: Previously you said that the models were unfalsifiable. Now you say they are. Explain this discrepancy.
Easy - you don't accept the falsification of the NOAA 2008 model as a falsification of CAGW - therefore, this tinker toy doesn't even *represent* your central conceit...indeed, you blithely assert that *no* failed model can tear down your CAGW edifice, the ultimate claim of non-falsifiablility. Q.E.D.:)
Further, I've caught you lying again. What does the NOAA 2008 climate assessment paper actually say? And bear in mind, I've read the paper.
It said that any period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming would be excluded by their models at the 95% confidence level. So, either you're going to hold onto the last 5% chance that their models are correct, or you're going to admit that the models are no longer viable.
What say you? Will you lie, misinform and scaremonger again, claiming that the models are the truth when you say they are, but even if they're false, your central conceit still stands?:)
So once again, "teen genius", what is it that makes you better than all of the scientists in a field you know little or nothing about?
Maybe you're hard of reading in your old age?:) I answered this one - I understand the necessity of falsifiability, and you, and the unnamed authorities you've outsourced your reason to and now unconditionally believe in, don't.
"Show me a better model, and I'll use it" is the last refuge of charlatans, the mentally decrepit, and astrologers.
If you want to show up your "teen genius" you imagine you're engaging with, please, feel free to quote from any expert you wish (please, identify the expert directly), a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
If you want to address the lesser non-catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, feel free as well - but be sure to specify exactly what quantity of effect is being attributed to humanity.
You claimed that GCMS were unfalsifiable: You were lying. You claimed that AGW as a theory is unfalsifiable. Your were lying.
You claimed that GCMs were falsifiable, but refused to accept the falsification of NOAA 2008, and furthermore, stated that the falsification of *any* model wouldn't refute the CAGW hypothesis. You are lying.
You claimed that the CAGW is falsifiable. You are lying.
You claimed that CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true. You are lying.
Consider yourself called out once again:)
Oh, and you can prove that you *aren't* lying by simply quoting a single necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming from any piece of peer-reviewed literature you'd like to...but you've never seen one before, so if you claim you have direct knowledge of it without quoting it, you are lying:)
Wait, so you're going with "science is done by, 'show me a better model and I'll use it'"?
Really?
And you say you've actually *read* Popper?
A central conceit (humans are causing catastrophic global warming with their CO2 emissions), that has a thousand models, but even if all one thousand were falsified, they could still be tweaked to maintain the central conceit, is by definition, a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Would you accept this kind of logic for a different conceit? Like the conceit of astrology that human behaviors, personality and fates are determined by the positions of astrological bodies at the moment of their birth? If an astrologer told you, "show me a better model and I'll use it", would you feel compelled to come up with a detailed model of human behaviors, personality and fate? Would you feel cheated if they responded to your new model with a slightly tweaked model that was just slightly more accurate, and then they declared their premise true again?
It's a shame that someone who watched Buzz Aldrin land on the moon would abandon science and reason, and instead hold onto faith based climatology (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5734525/Buzz-Aldrin-calls-for-manned-flight-to-Mars-to-overcome-global-problems.html)
Shame on you, sir, you're an embarrassment to your generation, and your generation's heroes.
You asserted a negative, and now need to prove it, if you can't, then be it on your own head
Really, demanding someone prove a negative? That's what you'll hang your hat on?:)
Why do you say that the science is not falsifiable when you really think it is?
Me: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the central conceit of CAGW, then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
You: Aha! You've admitted it is falsifiable! But NOAA 2008 being falsified doesn't affect CAGW.
Me: So, CAGW is still *not* falsifiable.
You: No, no, I said it *is*, and you've got to prove that it's not!
Me: Quote your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement then.
You: Nope, irrelevant.
Yeah, right:)
You've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
And you *still* don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement after weeks of comments:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, a lot of good technical points, which Lewandowsky summarily dismissed as conspiracy against him :)
Even more fun:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/lewandowskys-latest-smear-paper-gets-pulled-from-the-journal-website/
Despite whatever tone you might critique from McIntyre, his takedown of Lewandowsky is clearly fact based - even if people decide to dismiss it because of their own conspiracy ideation, doesn't mean it isn't an accurate portrayal of Lewandowsky's fraud :)
If Lewandowsky's fraud gets published in Psychological Science, then indeed, peer review is thoroughly broken. Presented as a bait and switch to an ethics panel, with no controls, faked data, and poor analysis, it's like having Science present an article on creationism.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/23/more-deception-in-the-lewandowsky-data/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/11/17046/
...I think what they were trying to say was "evokes", even though as written it's probably more accurate :)
invokes 3rd person singular present of invoke (Verb)
Verb
Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.
Call on (a deity or spirit) in prayer, as a witness, or for inspiration.
evokes 3rd person singular present of evoke (Verb)
Verb
Bring or recall to the conscious mind.
Elicit (a response).
So, certainly, Lewandowsky's fraud papers both appealed to conspiratorial thinking to support their arguments :)
The problem here is that the conspiratorial thinking that was invoked was was on the part of Lewandowsky. Rather than taking the critiques of his abandoned first paper as legitimate, he immediately decided that anyone disagreeing with him must be part of a conspiracy against him.
My prediction - when this second paper is also taken apart as a fraud, he'll write a third one saying everyone who disagreed with his second one is part of a conspiracy of conspiritorial thinking :)
So exactly how does one eliminate a high pressure atmosphere from Venus? One way of lowering the atmospheric pressure is reducing the mass of venus (thereby having weaker gravity, and unable to hold a high pressure atmosphere), but say you managed to instantaneously precipitate half of venus's atmosphere into solid form, and reduced its atmospheric pressure by half -> wouldn't its gravity tend to move the atmosphere back into a high-pressure equilibrium with the planet?
...haven't they heard of Minecraft?
NOAA in 2008 wrote than any observed period of statistically insignificant warming greater than 15 years was excluded by their models at the 95% confidence level.
We've seen 16 of those years now. By NOAA's own words, their model only has a 5% chance of being right anymore.
And of course, Trenberth - "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
In fact, the Met Office just downgraded their decadal prediction - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Of course, saying that the observation of a lack of statistically significant warming over the past 16 years is very close to the "average consensus forecasts" is like saying that your personality is very close to the "average consensus horoscopes" of the last 16 years - there's no falsifiability there.
Come back and play the science game when you get some :)
...is off by 100%.
Can we really say with a straight face, that our models are at all accurate? Is the blind assumption now by the Church of Global Warming that any parameter adjustments to models will be in one direction?
Mod parent up. 1 x 30 == 3 x 10, and rifles don't weigh all that much.
Will you also have an intelligent conversation about whether it is an acceptable tradeoff as a society to high capacity automobile ownership in exchange for possibly limiting the destructiveness of a future event? Nobody really *needs* a car that can carry four people, since they could always just buy two cars that carry two each, right? Certainly no private individual ever needs to own a bus, right?
While I'm certain that for certain area effect weapons one might make the case for regulation (including storage rules, and other safety that might also be applied, to say, fertilizer and gasoline), the fact of the matter is that the cat is out of the bag - you can make weapons, both targeted and area effect, no matter what the laws say. Insisting that people don't have a right to something that is trivially obtainable seems counterproductive.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
It's only one comma:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144
http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html
And what about the guy who decides that if his magazine size is limited, he'll simply carry more guns? Shall we limit everything to a 3 round magazine, and limit everyone to a single firearm? Will that stop a murderer from getting multiple firearms?
The slippery slope on this is simply untenable. You cannot stop bad people from having guns, nor can you stop bad people from having large magazines. The laws proposed for limitations only affect law abiding citizens, who these murderers are most definitely *not*.
At the end of the day, especially given the democratization of making things with 3d models, CNC and 3d printers, the cat is out of the bag. Symbolic gestures at this point are no more effective than the TSA security theatre we all suffer through at airports.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Science-Low-Carbohydrate-Living/dp/0983490708/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358019060&sr=1-1&keywords=art+of+low+carbohydrate+living
http://www.amazon.com/Slow-Burn-Fitness-Revolution-Exercise/dp/0767913868
I pretty much do nothing but sit all day, but I continue to get fitter, and healthier, with essentially a diet based on nutritional ketosis, and 30 minutes of slow strength training a week.
Learn how the human body works, and you can optimize.
Actually, wouldn't "student teacher at the university" (given the horror stories we get about grad students and the pressures put on them), give something quite similar, or even worse?
I'd also argue that even simply being a student in academia gives at least some degree of insight - certainly more than being say, a customer of a car repair joint.
Mod parent up - professors complaining that their jobs are more stressful than others are doing so without any rational basis for comparison if their academic career didn't have any gaps while they did other jobs.
So is that your Orwellian solution? Let's simply define everyone we disagree with as "mentally unstable" so we can track them :)
I mean, I'm all for instant background check, but to deny someone rights because they don't trust the government? Isn't that what King George did?
Actually, I'll assert if you get services from the government those records should be public (schools, medical, other entitlements). Furthermore, if you *work* for the government (as an individual or a company), your employment/financial records should be public.
So frankly, if you're going to allow the government to track you with licenses and permits for firearms, you have to *expect* this information to be public record. Once you've given up the 2nd amendment, don't expect the 1st one to care.
Lesson to learn - maybe allowing the government to track you isn't such a great idea.
Copy paste? Afraid that your lies, misinformation and scaremongering lose their power unless they're blindly repeated? :)
Your underlying theory, which can apparently survive the falsification of any individual model, is, as I have clearly stated, quite obviously non-falsifiable. Your admission of this earlier puts quite clearly your lies into contrast :)
You asserted that regardless of the actual observation of the NOAA 2008 statement on falsification, CAGW still lives on no matter what.
You are lying when you assert that CAGW actually has a falsifiable hypothesis statement.
You are misinforming when you assert that it is irrelevant that you have never seen a falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW.
You are scaremongering when you assert that CAGW lives on no matter how many individual models are falsified.
Consider yourself called on it *again* :)
Really, you're busy insulting someone as if they're some sort of teen misfit, and you're hoping for someone to be the better person? :)
Really, the lady doth protest too much :)
What part of "falsifiability is required for science" don't you understand? What part about "show me a better model is simply astrology" don't you understand?
Do you simply refuse to read these points, or do you read them and don't understand them?
Easy - you don't accept the falsification of the NOAA 2008 model as a falsification of CAGW - therefore, this tinker toy doesn't even *represent* your central conceit...indeed, you blithely assert that *no* failed model can tear down your CAGW edifice, the ultimate claim of non-falsifiablility. Q.E.D. :)
It said that any period of 15 years of statistically insignificant warming would be excluded by their models at the 95% confidence level. So, either you're going to hold onto the last 5% chance that their models are correct, or you're going to admit that the models are no longer viable.
What say you? Will you lie, misinform and scaremonger again, claiming that the models are the truth when you say they are, but even if they're false, your central conceit still stands? :)
Consider yourself called out *again* :)
Maybe you're hard of reading in your old age? :) I answered this one - I understand the necessity of falsifiability, and you, and the unnamed authorities you've outsourced your reason to and now unconditionally believe in, don't.
"Show me a better model, and I'll use it" is the last refuge of charlatans, the mentally decrepit, and astrologers.
If you want to show up your "teen genius" you imagine you're engaging with, please, feel free to quote from any expert you wish (please, identify the expert directly), a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
If you want to address the lesser non-catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, feel free as well - but be sure to specify exactly what quantity of effect is being attributed to humanity.
You claimed that GCMs were falsifiable, but refused to accept the falsification of NOAA 2008, and furthermore, stated that the falsification of *any* model wouldn't refute the CAGW hypothesis. You are lying.
You claimed that the CAGW is falsifiable. You are lying.
You claimed that CAGW doesn't even require correlation to be true. You are lying.
Consider yourself called out once again :)
Oh, and you can prove that you *aren't* lying by simply quoting a single necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming from any piece of peer-reviewed literature you'd like to...but you've never seen one before, so if you claim you have direct knowledge of it without quoting it, you are lying :)
Wait, so you're going with "science is done by, 'show me a better model and I'll use it'"?
Really?
And you say you've actually *read* Popper?
A central conceit (humans are causing catastrophic global warming with their CO2 emissions), that has a thousand models, but even if all one thousand were falsified, they could still be tweaked to maintain the central conceit, is by definition, a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Would you accept this kind of logic for a different conceit? Like the conceit of astrology that human behaviors, personality and fates are determined by the positions of astrological bodies at the moment of their birth? If an astrologer told you, "show me a better model and I'll use it", would you feel compelled to come up with a detailed model of human behaviors, personality and fate? Would you feel cheated if they responded to your new model with a slightly tweaked model that was just slightly more accurate, and then they declared their premise true again?
It's a shame that someone who watched Buzz Aldrin land on the moon would abandon science and reason, and instead hold onto faith based climatology (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5734525/Buzz-Aldrin-calls-for-manned-flight-to-Mars-to-overcome-global-problems.html)
Shame on you, sir, you're an embarrassment to your generation, and your generation's heroes.
Really, demanding someone prove a negative? That's what you'll hang your hat on? :)
Me: If NOAA 2008 is correct, and the 15 year period observed of statistically insignificant warming has falsified the central conceit of CAGW, then yes, CAGW is falsifiable.
You: Aha! You've admitted it is falsifiable! But NOAA 2008 being falsified doesn't affect CAGW.
Me: So, CAGW is still *not* falsifiable.
You: No, no, I said it *is*, and you've got to prove that it's not!
Me: Quote your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement then.
You: Nope, irrelevant.
Yeah, right :)
You've made my point, and we'll end on that - all of your models are red herrings, the accuracy of which is irrelevant to your central conceit of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. You use them as proof of your premise, but when they are falsified, your premise withstands any damage at all.
And you *still* don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement after weeks of comments :)