Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
I know those methods are crap... they're just crap - I know it
I realize that you depend on other people to tell you what your opinion should be but others do not have your limitations. When I say the methods are crap it is because I have looked at the methods used and based on my knowledge I think they are crap. IOW, I collect information from many sources - including RC and other alarmists blogs. I then compare it to information I get from sceptical blogs and by reading the actual papers. Based on those inputs I form my opinion and in quite a few cases I end up concluding that the sceptic view is wrong. I am happy to debate the scientitic basis for my opinions, however, such a debate is impossible with someone who takes the position that all non-peer reviewed sources of information must be ignored.

Bottom line. You can harp as much as you want about peer reviewed literature but it is painfully obvious that it is a argument made from weakness because if the science really supported what you believe you would not insist on exluding sources.

Edited by Riverwind

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I realize that you depend on other people to tell you what your opinion should be but others do not have your limitations. When I say the methods are crap it is because I have looked at the methods used and based on my knowledge I think they are crap. IOW, I collect information from many sources - including RC and other alarmists blogs. I then compare it to information I get from sceptical blogs and by reading the actual papers. Based on those inputs I form my opinion and in quite a few cases I end up concluding that the sceptic view is wrong. I am happy to debate the scientitic basis for my opinions, however, such a debate is impossible with someone who takes the position that all non-peer reviewed sources of information must be ignored.

Bottom line. You can harp as much as you want about peer reviewed literature but it is painfully obvious that it is a argument made from weakness because if the science really supported what you believe you would not insist on exluding sources.

you obviously value peer-review on some level... when you can actually find a relevant skeptical paper, you don't hesitate in pointing out it's been peer-reviewed - would you like links to your posts where you've done just that? The harp... is your own... based on your wild-assed, over-the-top, world-wide conspiracy that you claim keeps skeptical papers from being published... no matter how often you're reminded of the 'hundreds' of so-called skeptical papers that do get published. You just can't deal with the fact few, if any, can actually stand the weight of subsequent scientific scrutiny (as in peer-response). You rail on to no end, criticizing the IPCC over, as you state, (I paraphrase) "it's peer-review failings" - yet, you obviously don't recognize, don't understand that the IPCC principles actually allow provision for so-called 'gray material' (not peer reviewed) - of course, that doesn't include "blog science" :lol:

as for your claim that your cut/paste from your go-to denier blogs is being excluded... that's just not the case. Your cut/paste is certainly included - just not/rarely significant or value-add. Your favoured group of "fake scientists" blogs up a storm that regularly feeds the easily manipulated and less scrutinizing types - it would seem you've found a home in denialtown.

Posted (edited)

Waldo......here's the latest to call for reform of the IPCC and the process itself:

Last week, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was forced to apologise after wrongly claiming most of the Himalayan glaciers would vanish within 25 years.

The warning, which appeared in the IPCC's 2007 report, turned out to be taken from a news story from New Scientist magazine in the late 1990s based on an interview with a glacier expert. The expert later admitted his comment was speculation.

The same report also exaggerated claims that global warming will increase the number of tropical storms.

In November, leaked emails appeared to show scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulating data to strengthen the case for man-made climate change - and debating ways to stop sceptics getting hold of their raw temperature data.

Professor Beddington said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

'I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,' he said. Glaciers: Claims they will melt by 2035 were not backed up, the UN said

'Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.' He said that the false claim about glaciers in the IPCC report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

'Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,' he added.

'We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism.

'All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, "There's a level of uncertainty about that".'

Professor Beddington also said that computer climate modelling resulted in 'quite substantial uncertainties' that should be communicated.

'It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,' he told the Times.

'But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change. When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties.

'On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.'

The UN is under increasing pressure to reform the IPCC - and include research from sceptical scientists in its reports.

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation thinktank, said of Professor Beddington's remarks: 'His public rebuke is a highly significant development which we hope will help to restore some much needed balance and realism to the climate debate.'

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246404/Top-climate-change-adviser-John-Beddington-calls-honesty-scientists-global-warming-debate.html

Edited by Keepitsimple

Back to Basics

Posted

A few salient points from Riverwind

I realize that you depend on other people to tell you what your opinion should be but others do not have your limitations.

Unlike you, I don't blindly depend on people to tell me what is right or wrong.

Pity, poor waldo can never make a decision. They are made for him. All bow. Amen.

I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

Posted

Pliny... are you still smarting - c'mon, get over it... would you like a handicap next time? :lol:

as for the earlier nonsense that emanated from the scurrilous Daily Mail/David Rose, we now have the scientist involved, Murari Lal, disputing the statements attributed to him... better yet, a full blown "Rosegate" has bubbled forth, given this and the numerous past examples of unsubstantiated tripe David Rose & the Daily Mail spew forth. Although Lal's comments refuting the Daily Mail/David Rose also appear within the NYT's Dot Earth column... I've linked to this blog because it also highlights another typical practice of late... one where we see more reputable publications like US News and World Report & Science News simply reprinting unverified blog posts of erroneous stories. Of course, this makes great fodder for the MLW types who jump at any chance to similarly post unsubstantiated accounts they presume to align with their agenda. Certainly, journalistic laziness reigns supreme!

Posted

I find it quite implausible that the daily mail would run quotes that it did not have a good reason to believe to be accurate because they know that they would get challenged if not sued. The most plausible explanation Lal is trying to cover his tracks.

well... of course... you would. Don't worry, as I said, the focus has now shifted to Rose and he is being intensely scrutinized over this and many of his past false/fabricated assertions. What part of being an English tabloid rag don't you understand... obviously the Daily Mail model presumes to offset libel costs against increased readership numbers

certainly... skeptic/denier tabloid journalism... at it's best!

Posted (edited)

well... of course... you would. Don't worry, as I said, the focus has now shifted to Rose and he is being intensely scrutinized over this and many of his past false/fabricated assertions. What part of being an English tabloid rag don't you understand... obviously the Daily Mail model presumes to offset libel costs against increased readership numbers

certainly... skeptic/denier tabloid journalism... at it's best!

Oh c'mon Waldo.....use your head for something more than to grow hair on. Of course Lal will try to backtrack on his "comments" - we'll call them "implications" for sake of argument. The 2035 was clearly wrong - one IPCC explanation was that the year got reversed and it should have been 2350. That didn't fly of course. Now Lal is saying he thought it was OK for the IPCC to include not only peer-reviewed science but "gray science" and I guess that's what he's implying now......that he knew it wasn't peer reviewed - but it looked like "good science". The fact is, it was very visible (the media was all over it like a dog on a bone) - but a totally unsubstantiated "finding"......and no attempt to circle the wagons and shoot the messenger will change that. From your own disjointed alarmist blog:

Interestingly, I thought that was true, too, but I decided to check with two top IPCC scientists, and they both confirmed to me that in fact, the IPCC does allow gray literature reports. And the IPCC explains this here (see Annex 2).

Lal told me:

We were allowed to cite gray literature provided that it looked to us to be good science.

One leading climate scientist said he had thought that in the Fourth Assessment, the IPCC was going to clamp down more on this.

To me, the peer-reviewed science contains more than enough to write reports on — see my summary of the literature in 2009, “The year climate science caught up with what top scientists have been saying privately for years.” I think the IPCC needs to stop this practice of using gray literature, especially for quantitative matters.

In any case, the 2035 figure was wrong — you can find the origin of the mistake here. And you can find the IPCC’s retraction here. And here’s what I think the IPCC should have done — “Memo to IPCC: Please reanalyze ALL of your conclusions about melting ice and sea level rise.” The IPCC messed this up big time, and I’ll have more to say on that Tuesday.

Link: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/25/un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-claim-himalayan-glacier-2035-ipcc-mistake-not-politically-motivated/

Edited by Keepitsimple

Back to Basics

Posted

Oh c'mon Waldo.....use your head for something more than to grow hair on. Of course Lal will try to backtrack on his "comments" - we'll call them "implications" for sake of argument. The 2035 was clearly wrong - one IPCC explanation was that the year got reversed and it should have been 2350. That didn't fly of course. Now Lal is saying he thought it was OK for the IPCC to include not only peer-reviewed science but "grey science" and I guess that's what he's implying now. The fact is, it was very visible - but totally unsubstantiated data......and no attempt to circle the wagons and shoot the messenger will change that.

Simple, you should be so proud of your tabloid journal sources. Rosegate is unraveling quite nicely - - - I wonder if the Daily Mail will give it coverage :lol: Quite the revelation you've latched onto Simple... a single paragraph within thousands of pages... from a subgroup report... statements that didn't make their way into the actual summarized Synthesis report... didn't make their way into the Summary for Policymakers report... were never offered/stated as significant IPCC "claims". Yet, you think you have something to latch onto to. Your desperation seems to know no bounds, Simple - no bounds desperation... aided and abetted by English tabloid journalism - hee haw!

I note you haven't bothered to take up the challenge presented to you - as represented by the IPCC's response to your fake outrage... where there's a reiteration of what the IPCC Synthesis report actually states concerning glacier retreat. Apparently no one wants to challenge the IPCC on what it's summary report and stated claims on glacier retreat actually are - it figures - go figure!

btw - are you suggesting 'legitimate' non-peer review material is not allowed... has not appeared... within IPCC reports?

Posted (edited)

stated claims on glacier retreat actually are - it figures - go figure!

btw - are you suggesting 'legitimate' non-peer review material is not allowed... has not appeared... within IPCC reports?

I guess that depends on what "legitimate" means. In the Himalayan case, it was clearly NOT legitimate. But Waldo, as usual you're missing the entire thrust of the CRU/IPCC/Scientific Integrity debate. The Great Waldo is right of course in that Glaciergate was but a fraction of the report and did not make it into the summary......but of course the lobbyists and activists were well aware of its inclusion in the report and clearly, they played it for all it was worth.....and these are the things that stick in the public's mind - pictures of the Himalayas melting, floods, hurricanes.....all outrageously exaggerated - even fraudulantly so. If the science is sound - and settled - there is no need for fraud and misrepresentation. As numerous articles have stated - and more and more IPCC scientists concur - the IPCC is in need of serious reform. A funny thought just came into my head....I'm picturing Waldo as the captain of a huge ship called the UN IPCC... wearing an Ottoman uniform.....slowly sinking beneath the waves, still madly cuting and pasting from the RC website....all the while spluttering his allegiance to Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Rajendra Pachauri. Put on a lifejacket Waldo.

Edited by Keepitsimple

Back to Basics

Posted

as for the earlier nonsense that emanated from the scurrilous Daily Mail/David Rose, we now have the scientist involved, Murari Lal, disputing the statements attributed to him... better yet, a full blown "Rosegate" has bubbled forth, given this and the numerous past examples of unsubstantiated tripe David Rose & the Daily Mail spew forth. Although Lal's comments refuting the Daily Mail/David Rose also appear within the NYT's Dot Earth column... I've linked to this blog because it also highlights another typical practice of late... one where we see more reputable publications like US News and World Report & Science News simply reprinting unverified blog posts of erroneous stories. Of course, this makes great fodder for the MLW types who jump at any chance to similarly post unsubstantiated accounts they presume to align with their agenda. Certainly, journalistic laziness reigns supreme!

Zounds! Must be some sort of conspiracy against you.

I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

Posted
But Waldo, as usual you're missing the entire thrust of the CRU/IPCC/Scientific Integrity debate.

...all outrageously exaggerated - even fraudulantly so. If the science is sound - and settled - there is no need for fraud and misrepresentation.

notwithstanding your tabloid journalism sources... your completely biased denier blogs... and unfounded, unsubstantiated claims in regards anal line by line email parsing, what else ya got? Out of the thousands of participating scientists and their overwhelming scientific consensus, you would presume to taint everything/anything related to the IPCC... over your reliance on tabloid journalism and denier blogs... over your personal denier agenda to presume to link a handful of scientists (rightly or wrongly) to, as you state/infer, wide sweeping fraud and misrepresentation. Of course, your underlying intent is to attack the science through non-scientific means - simply and entirely on the fact you (your denier side) can't rely on the science to make your case. You simply can't, and because you can't, you manufacture dissent, you manufacture doubt, you manufacture uncertainty.

Posted
Out of the thousands of participating scientists and their overwhelming scientific consensus, you would presume to taint everything/anything related to the IPCC
Two questions.

1) Where is your evidence that 1000s of scientists really participated in the writing of the IPCC report? You will need to provide more than a list of reviewers because most of the reviewers did not contribute much and the ones that did often found their concerns were ignoired by the gatekeepers like Jones and Briffa.

2) Where is your evidence that all of the scientists that supposedly agree with the consensus actually investigated the science themselves and come to a conclusion based on the evidence? The statements by professional bodies and other such organizations does not count as evidence since those statement are not voted on by the membership nor is there any evidence that the people supporting such motions actually looked at the evidence themselves.

I think you will find that the core cliams of the IPCC are result of the work of nor more than 100 people and that almost none of the supporting 'cast of thousands' has actually read any of the papers they produced - they simply accept their conclusions like blind sheep because it would unprofessional to dis their brothers in arms.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
The statements by professional bodies and other such organizations does not count as evidence since those statement are not voted on by the membership nor is there any evidence that the people supporting such motions actually looked at the evidence themselves.

I think you will find that the core cliams of the IPCC are result of the work of nor more than 100 people and that almost none of the supporting 'cast of thousands' has actually read any of the papers they produced - they simply accept their conclusions like blind sheep because it would unprofessional to dis their brothers in arms.

more Riverwind conspiracy (circa xxxx - xxxx, volume xxx)... more Riverwind ignoring the science... more Riverwind manufactured dissent, manufactured doubt, manufactured uncertainty. Yes, more Riverwind ignoring the scientific consensus... just a handy link (one of several out there that presume to keep an updated catalog of all those working to conspire and keep the skeptic-denier man down!)

Posted (edited)
ignoring the scientific consensus just a handy link
Your link provides zero evidence to support the assertion that the consensus is result of anything other than scientists blindly accepting the conclusions of a small minority of scientists. In fact, anyone who has any knowledge if human nature would agree that my view is most plausible and because people are lazy and it is easier to simply agree with a collegue than to argue with them. Edited by Riverwind

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted

Your link provides zero evidence to support the assertion that the consensus is result of anything other than scientists blindly accepting the conclusions of a small minority of scientists. In fact, anyone who has any knowledge if human nature would agree that my view is most plausible and because people are lazy and it is easier to simply agree with a collegue than to argue with them.

Next stop: Creationism. That'll be awesome.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted (edited)
Next stop: Creationism. That'll be awesome.
Your response illustrates the problem. By equating the legitimate scientific concerns of sceptics to 'creationism' the alarmists have been able to impose a huge social cost on any colleagues that might have reservations. The net result is scientists blindly sign up to the AGW agenda because it is safer and easier. Edited by Riverwind

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted

Next stop: Creationism. That'll be awesome.

now there is a Creationist group in the US wanting the Laws of Gravity changed to "

Intelligent Motion"...

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

Posted

Your response illustrates the problem. By equating the legitimate scientific concerns of sceptics to 'creationism' the alarmists have been able to impose a huge social cost on any colleagues that might have reservations. The net result is scientists blindly sign up to the AGW agenda because it is safer and easier.

Wrong. The majority of scientists do not have tremendous knowledge of Evolutionary Theory, yet it retains an overwhelming scientific consensus. Meanwhile, there are blogs about which purport to undercut the theory, often on similar grounds that you are using. The analogy itself doesn't prove you're wrong (nor right, of course); but it is an apt analogy.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted
The majority of scientists do not have tremendous knowledge of Evolutionary Theory, yet it retains an overwhelming scientific consensus.
Creationism, by definition, is not science because it seeks to use unproveable 'god' to explain any gaps in the theory. Doing this has the effect of ending scientific enquiry because if one assumes that 'god did it' then there is no need for further investigation. That is why I don't need to know a thing about evolutionary theory before dismissing creationism.
Meanwhile, there are blogs about which purport to undercut the theory, often on similar grounds that you are using.
What grounds? The fact that I called waldo on his nonsense appeal to the authority of the 'consensus'? People don't need to defend evolution by appealing to the consensus. If that was all of that evolution had to support it then I would think it is nonsense too. Science is about developing explanatory hypotheses that can validated by correctly predicting future outcomes. The scientists with the theories that best predict future outcomes are the ones that are right and it does not make a diffence if the majority believes they are wrong.
The analogy itself doesn't prove you're wrong (nor right, of course); but it is an apt analogy.
No it is not. Anyone who thinks it is has more in commmon with a creationist than a scientist.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted

Another example of why people are skeptical of the IPCC......another swipe at the 2007 report:

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountains on a master's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine, The Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday.

The revelation comes just days after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologized for the "poorly substantiated" prediction that Himalayan glaciers will disappear within 25 years, based on a 1999 magazine article that quoted a single Indian glaciologist.

It also follows embarrassing criticisms by a top Canadian climate scientist about the IPCC's "dangerous crossing of the line" between science and political activism. Andrew Weaver, Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, called for the resignation of IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri, and urged a review of scientific principles.

The IPCC's role is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change to guide the policies of governments around the world.

In its most recent report, published in 2007, it stated that global warming was causing observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa, citing two papers as the source of the information.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that one of those sources was a 2002 feature article in Climbing magazine, written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change. In it, he quoted anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about changes to the mountainsides, and an overall decrease in ice-climbs.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student at the University of Berne in Switzerland, which quoted around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps. The author, Dario-Andri Schworer, is now a professional mountain guide and climate activist.

"These are essentially a collection of anecdotes," said Richard Tol, research professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, and an IPCC member. "Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two [which focused on ‘impacts, adaptation and vulnerability'] has been."

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2506179

Back to Basics

Posted

Another example of why people are skeptical of the IPCC......another swipe at the 2007 report:

pathetic desperation... clearly the manufactured doubt & uncertainty crowd are scurrying about in a concentrated effort to find and release the most trivial and inconsequential aspects of AR4. And... of course, Simple ton parrots this latest trumped up piece of shyte:

again, a subgroup report, WG2 - Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability - 1.3.1.1 Observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere. The linked to article references appear within... and only within... a table, in relation to the stated "observed change" => loss of ice climbs! Oh my - just imagine... climbers and mountain guides offering comment, anecdotal or otherwise, that they've encountered an observed change of fewer climbing days given an environmental factor of a reduction in mountain ice. Stop the presses! Of course, this WG2 subgroup report focus is not the actual physical science basis... that associates to the WG1 subgroup/report. But none the less, the denier manufactured doubt & uncertainty crowd have realized their intent... another headline, regardless of the actual trivial and inconsequential basis. Well done Simple ton!

the full html version of the related report section referenced:

Posted

Creationism, by definition, is not science because it seeks to use unproveable 'god' to explain any gaps in the theory. Doing this has the effect of ending scientific enquiry because if one assumes that 'god did it' then there is no need for further investigation. That is why I don't need to know a thing about evolutionary theory before dismissing creationism.

noted & bookmarked for the next time you presume to trot out yet another one of your references/substantiations attributed to the denier scientist Roy Spencer... an avowed creationist... "intelligent designer"

Posted (edited)
Roy Spencer...
And Issac Newton was an alchemist and a evangelical christian. Are you going to argue that he was not right about gravity because of his odd ball beliefs?
Newton considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[12] He was a strong believer in prophetic interpretation of the Bible, and like many of his contemporaries in Protestant England, he developed a strong affinity and deep admiration for the teachings and works of Joseph Mede.
I have a very simply standard for evaluating science: show me that your theory can conclusively predict future outcomes and I will take it seriously. Spencer has not met that standard either but he has shown that it is possible to reproduce recent climate changes without assuming a string CO2 effect. We will know in 10-20 years if he is right. Edited by Riverwind

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...