Intellectual dishonesty

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm sure by now most of you have read Shady's most recent sig. His qoute mine from Phil Jones. If there has ever been an event that shows just how dishonest people can be this is it, it has been pointed out that he is wrong about what Jones said yet he persists in keeping the qoute mine in his sig.

For anyone interested this is what Jones said.

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Basically they are 95% sure of the warming trend for this period but it cannot be considered statistically-significant because the time frame is to short.

Qoute mining is pathetic, Shady you need help.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Basically they are 95% sure of the warming trend for this period but it cannot be considered statistically-significant because the time frame is to short.

I don't think that is what he meant if you quoted the passage correctly. A 95% confidence level is a statistical threshold that can be supported by the underlying data given that the data distribution assumptions are true. What he is saying is that the 1995-2009 data interval currently falls short of this threshold, and DOES NOT meet the 95% confidence level for a warming trend....meaning that more than 1 out of 20 measurements would fall outside of the confidence (data) interval. However, it does meet a lower confidence level.

Edited February 20, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest TrueMetis]

My mistake. Still it is not considered significant because of the short time period not because of a lack of warming.

Though this is not a thread for debate on that this is me pointing out that the qoute in Shady's sig is qoute mined.

Edited February 20, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Michael Hardner]

And, importantly, it does not mean that there has been cooling in this period. I've seen that written a few times now.

[Shakeyhands]

It's an old trick that seems to be being used a lot by the radical right wing.... see below.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002180029

[Bugs]

I'm sure by now most of you have read Shady's most recent sig. His qoute mine from Phil Jones. If there has ever been an event that shows just how dishonest people can be this is it, it has been pointed out that he is wrong about what Jones said yet he persists in keeping the qoute mine in his sig.

For anyone interested this is what Jones said.

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Basically they are 95% sure of the warming trend for this period but it cannot be considered statistically-significant because the time frame is to short.

Qoute mining is pathetic, Shady you need help.

Dastardly as Shady's behaviour may be, it's still the case that the equally dastardly perps at CRU were exposed, and their position has been destroyed. Phil Jones is trying to bold-face through a difficult interiew without admitting he cooked the data ... but he has to retreat from the his previous firm conclusions. He seems to be appealing to the same well-meaning people he duped before to save him from the embarrassment that a scientific fraud should expect.

Even so, it's a long way from "... the Science is settled, so shut up..." to the current " ... Yes, there's no statistically significant global warming ... but it's almost significant ..."

Is that a reason we should spend $trillions and wreck our economies?

I hope you see where the path of good sense now lies ... TrueMetis

Edited February 21, 2010 by Bugs

[waldo]

intellect? Honesty?... you're talking about Shady... and Bugs here, right?

to deniers, it's all about distortion, about fabrication. This truly is a classic example - one Shady, and Bugs simply parrot. It starts right from the background process employed by the journalist... specific questions were solicited from so-called skeptics, borne out by the preciseness seen within this particular question itself. The questions shortened 15 year interval period was purposely chosen to maximize the affect of short-term trending - we've spoken of this at length through many MLW threads... it's the favoured game of the denialists. The denialist 'trick' is to avoid discussing anything related to the standard accepted climate change interval period for trending - typically, between 20-30 years. Even as it stands, over the much shortened 15 year period, the hadCRUT statistical significance figure offered by Jones was over a very close 93% confidence level.

but it gets better... the Jones response gets amplified across the denialsphere and plays itself across the rabid competing British tabloids - suddenly, the headlines read, "there's been no warming since 1995"... and goes downhill from there. The fact this HadCRUT datset shows a strong positive warming trend over that period doesn't matter. The fact this HadCRUT dataset, is but one of many surface data sets being processed across the world... that doesn't matter. The fact this HadCRUT dataset shows the least warming across all other datasets (NASA GISTEMP, NOAA NCDC, CPD/JMA, etc.)... that doesn't matter. And why does this HadCRUT dataset shows the least warming... because it doesn't include any measurements from the polar regions - where the most significant warming is occurring.

but it gets even better... skeptics long favoured the HadCRUT dataset because it showed the least warming of all the world's processed datasets, conveniently ignoring the reason why it showed the least warming. Again... because HadCRUT doesn't include the polar regions. But along comes Hackergate and it's suddenly all about discrediting the HadCRUT data - that's is "cooked". Right... cooked to show less warming than all other datasets. Right... suddenly it's "cooked, worthless" data. But hey now!!! Suddenly the HadCRUT data takes on legitimacy and has value... it actually means something... so long as the deniers can twist Jones' comment to further distort, fabricate, cast doubt and cast uncertainty upon AGW climate change. Deniers... scum of the earth!

[Michael Hardner]

Even so, it's a long way from "... the Science is settled, so shut up..." to the current " ... Yes, there's no statistically significant global warming ... but it's almost significant ..."

No statistically significant global warming since 1995. Also - did Jones ever say the science was settled ? This could be another case of putting Al Gore in the same box as climate scientists. That should not be done.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Dastardly as Shady's behaviour may be, it's still the case that the equally dastardly perps at CRU were exposed, and their position has been destroyed. Phil Jones is trying to bold-face through a difficult interiew without admitting he cooked the data ... but he has to retreat from the his previous firm conclusions. He seems to be appealing to the same well-meaning people he duped before to save him from the embarrassment that a scientific fraud should expect.

Even so, it's a long way from "... the Science is settled, so shut up..." to the current " ... Yes, there's no statistically significant global warming ... but it's almost significant ..."

Is that a reason we should spend $trillions and wreck our economies?

I hope you see where the path of good sense now lies ... TrueMetis

I've never said we should spend trillions. Who said the CRU's position was destroyed? I have yet to see that happen. You are still qoute mining. And he still seems pretty bold in his conclusions. (overly bold IMO)

"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

Though he is honest enough to admit.

"When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."

But once again this is not a thread on whether global warming is happening.

Edited February 21, 2010 by TrueMetis

[eyeball]

But once again this is not a thread on whether global warming is happening.

No, GW is probably the least of our problems. I suspect this problem of intellectual dishonesty impacts most if not all other issues that call for adapting political and economic policies and agendas in the face of adverse information. In the wake of the acrimony over this fight I don't think we could arrive at any decision, even if our well being depended on it next week never mind next century.

I blame this failure on a lack of principles, honesty and integrity at the extreme uppermost levels of our society. Without these springing forth there, how can we expect them to trickle down through the rest of society? Are we supposed to believe these values well up from below or wick their way up to the top? I know our democratic will is supposed to work this way but I have my suspicions that it actually does to any great extent. Perhaps if it really did we would see more integrity up on high too.

I'm reminded of the ear candle my wife is trying to talk me into using, you light the tip and stick the base in your ear and it sucks all the crap up and out. I told her I wanted a professional opinion before I try something like that but she just looked at me and asked "you, trust an expert"?

Edited February 21, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

I blame this failure on a lack of principles, honesty and integrity at the extreme uppermost levels of our society. Without these springing forth there, how can we expect them to trickle down through the rest of society? Are we supposed to believe these values well up from below or wick their way up to the top? I know our democratic will is supposed to work this way but I have my suspicions that it actually does to any great extent. Perhaps if it really did we would see more integrity up on high too.

How about this - every time we cut loose a segment of the Canadian economy that affects workers, we mandate a cross-party think tank to study what happens to wages, prices and profits and to publish the results.

[August1991]

IMV, Phil Jones' greatest admission (and there were many) concerned the Medieval Warming Period. Here's the BBC interview quote:

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

BBC

There is enough doubt in that quote to force further investigation of the problem. The science is not settled.

A politician with integrity would not adopt a costly policy based on such a conclusion.

[waldo]

IMV, Phil Jones' greatest admission (and there were many) concerned the Medieval Warming Period. Here's the BBC interview quote:BBC

There is enough doubt in that quote to force further investigation of the problem. The science is not settled.

A politician with integrity would not adopt a costly policy based on such a conclusion.

ah yes - August1991 comes down from the mount!

you would presume to believe - to suggest - there is some dramatic revelation played out in Jones' MWP related quote? Interesting, particularly since anything Jones said in that BBC interview quote is entirely consistent with AR4 WG1 conclusions and related peer-reviewed publications since the AR4 report was released... but feel free to show otherwise.

What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show? - IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

In order to reduce the uncertainty, further work is necessary to update existing records, many of which were assembled up to 20 years ago, and to produce many more, especially early, palaeoclimate series with much wider geographic coverage. There are far from sufficient data to make any meaningful estimates of global medieval warmth (Figure 6.11). There are very few long records with high temporal resolution data from the oceans, the tropics or the SH [southern Hemisphere].

The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950-1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).

the current state of the settled science meme you would presume to parrot, draws conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least 1300 years... and that evidence is too sparse to draw confident conclusions related to the Southern Hemisphere. And Jones' BBC interview contradicts this conclusion... how? You must have an answer August1991 - after all... you speak to it as his, as you say, "greatest admission".

[August1991]

...the current state of the settled science meme you would presume to parrot, draws conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least 1300 years...

If I understand properly, you agree that recent warming is "likely unprecedented".

You mean that it is likely but not certain.

As I say, the next buzz word will be "uncertainty". We have gone from "global warming" to "climate change". Welcome to the new description: "uncertainty".

[waldo]

If I understand properly, you agree that recent warming is "likely unprecedented".

You mean that it is likely but not certain.

As I say, the next buzz word will be "uncertainty". We have gone from "global warming" to "climate change". Welcome to the new description: "uncertainty".

pffft

[bush_cheney2004]

pffft

No doubt the sound of warm air going out of your balloon.

[waldo]

If I understand properly, you agree that recent warming is "likely unprecedented".

You mean that it is likely but not certain.

As I say, the next buzz word will be "uncertainty". We have gone from "global warming" to "climate change". Welcome to the new description: "uncertainty".

pffft ... ya ya, about your uncertainty

hey bush_cheney, fixed it for ya. Now... if you have anything other than your typical drive-by, please - don't hesitate to chime in.

[waldo]

No doubt the sound of warm air going out of your balloon.

oh snap!

[Shady]

No doubt the sound of warm air going out of your balloon.

LOL. I actually spit out some coffee reading your reply! Yes, it wasn't waldo's most substantive response. I think the word I'm looking for is checkmate.

Anyways, my signature isn't dishonest. The first word Jones' used to answer the question was YES. If you don't like that, take it up with him. The rest of his answer is just the usual AGW excuse and ass-covering they've resorted to over the last several months. After their anti-scientific practices have been made known to the world.

[waldo]

Anyways, my signature isn't dishonest. The first word Jones' used to answer the question was YES. If you don't like that, take it up with him. The rest of his answer is just the usual AGW excuse and ass-covering they've resorted to over the last several months. After their anti-scientific practices have been made known to the world.

oh my! Shady's feeling particularly emboldened today! That you continue to use that quote in your signature... knowing full well you've purposely twisted its meaning and intent... speaks even more profoundly. It's one thing to be intellectually disadvantaged; however, when you couple that with your acknowledgment... and still continue to emphasize it in a purposeful false and distorted manner... you've extended on the initial "intellectual dishonesty" that so prompted the OP to raise concerns in the first place.

I hope you keep that signature intact... it truly says much more about you personally than anything intended or derived.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Anyways, my signature isn't dishonest. The first word Jones' used to answer the question was YES. If you don't like that, take it up with him. The rest of his answer is just the usual AGW excuse and ass-covering they've resorted to over the last several months. After their anti-scientific practices have been made known to the world.

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

That sums up what you are doing with the qoute perfectly. You are trying to give the illusion that he said there has been no warming even though there has. Then you try to back it up by resorting to your opinion and attacking Jones as makeing "excuses and ass-covering" which anyone capapble of readin comprehension.

Then you call their practices "anti-scientific" which is once again nothing more than your opinion.

Edited February 26, 2010 by TrueMetis

[ToadBrother]

Dastardly as Shady's behaviour may be, it's still the case that the equally dastardly perps at CRU were exposed, and their position has been destroyed. Phil Jones is trying to bold-face through a difficult interiew without admitting he cooked the data ... but he has to retreat from the his previous firm conclusions. He seems to be appealing to the same well-meaning people he duped before to save him from the embarrassment that a scientific fraud should expect.

Even so, it's a long way from "... the Science is settled, so shut up..." to the current " ... Yes, there's no statistically significant global warming ... but it's almost significant ..."

Is that a reason we should spend $trillions and wreck our economies?

I hope you see where the path of good sense now lies ... TrueMetis

Reread what you wrote. Your defense is absurdly strained.

[ToadBrother]

LOL. I actually spit out some coffee reading your reply! Yes, it wasn't waldo's most substantive response. I think the word I'm looking for is checkmate.

Anyways, my signature isn't dishonest. The first word Jones' used to answer the question was YES. If you don't like that, take it up with him. The rest of his answer is just the usual AGW excuse and ass-covering they've resorted to over the last several months. After their anti-scientific practices have been made known to the world.

False attribution is immoral. If you have to twist someone else's words to win a case, then you've pretty much conceded that you lost it. Whether you accept the science or not, I think it behooves you to behave with a modicum of honesty, and that would mean removing the quote, otherwise, you simply join a long list of pathetic liars and scam artists.

[BubberMiley]

Don't be dissing Shady! He rocks! No one on this forum has worked harder to make the Democrats seem like the honest, sane option. There should be more people like him on these forums.

[Shady]

You are trying to give the illusion that he said there has been no warming even though there has.

Nope. Not at all. You're the one who's being dishonest. As I have clearly state in my signature, Jones' response is to statistically-significant global warming. I'm not sure if you're just bad at reading, or you somehow missed it, but it's clearly there. Statistically-significant global warming. Please stop being intellectually dishonest. I'm tired of it.