Intellectual dishonesty

[eyeball]

Shady should keep it as is. That's how Jones answered.

There should be a period after the yes if he really answered it that way. But I'm also of the opinion that Shady should keep it as it is too, because I think it's such a good example of intellectual dishonesty.

If we want scientists to start answering questions like politicians - never saying no, always phrasing things their own way - then that day will surely come.

I'm pretty sure that days been here for years especially in sciences that public policies are based on and especially by scientists who have been hired to defend something which the public has demanded there be a policy to regulate oversee or stop.

The way Jones answered it typifies the disregard that scientists have about how the public perceives things, which is at the heart of this controversy.

The controversy underscores a far greater disaster, a growing public unwillingness to trust anything anyone says.

The good thing about the answer is that it is honest, and it will trigger intelligent discussions. The bad thing about it is that it can be taken out of context and reframed by commentators with lies all around it.

I think in this case it's actually the context that's been taken out.

Shady has presented a third option - cut off the quote where he likes, without adding the reframing.

You see a lot of that around here.

Edited February 26, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

The controversy underscores a far greater disaster, a growing public unwillingness to trust anything anyone says.

They trust the ones I refer to as hog-callers, which is the dumbest thing I can think of. These are the commentators such as Glenn Beck, Al Gore, and Rush Limbaugh that misquote, shade the truth and generally use deception.

Beck particularly irks me, because he is the most popular one (I think) and he has admitted that he believes in Global Warming, despite devoting major airtime on his show to the opposite viewpoint. See my other thread on that.

[August1991]

Shady should keep it as is. That's how Jones answered. If we want scientists to start answering questions like politicians - never saying no, always phrasing things their own way - then that day will surely come.

The way Jones answered it typifies the disregard that scientists have about how the public perceives things, which is at the heart of this controversy. The good thing about the answer is that it is honest, and it will trigger intelligent discussions. The bad thing about it is that it can be taken out of context and reframed by commentators with lies all around it.

Shady has presented a third option - cut off the quote where he likes, without adding the reframing.

Well, that's an original take on this issue.

I happen to disagree with the "settled science" contention. By all evidence, this evidence is not settled. This does not mean that I (a mere layman) dispute the basic premise of global warming, it's just that it seems to me that we don't know enough about how the earth establishes a stable temperature.

IOW, for Phil Jones to answer a question with "Yes but... " is tantamount to admitting that the science is not settled. Jones has no choice but to admit this because in fact, the science is not settled. We just don't know.

----

As to the term "climate change", it struck me as a leftist name-change too many. I think the research agenda should focus on global warming, and specifically on CO2 emissions.

At the same time, we need a broader research agenda on how humans affect the environment - without having any effect on humans. Individual humans will protect their own interests, and their environment.

Edited February 27, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Well, that's an original take on this issue.

I happen to disagree with the "settled science" contention. By all evidence, this evidence is not settled. This does not mean that I (a mere layman) dispute the basic premise of global warming, it's just that it seems to me that we don't know enough about how the earth establishes a stable temperature.

IOW, for Phil Jones to answer a question with "Yes but... " is tantamount to admitting that the science is not settled. Jones has no choice but to admit this because in fact, the science is not settled. We just don't know.

I thought about the snipped that Shady has cut from the full quote, and concluded that Shady's quote represents general example of the real problem - the disconnect between science and the world at large. It's always one of three problems isn't it: communication, communication or communication.

Auguste, I don't think you read the whole piece though. Jones himself doesn't think it's settled. This assertion is further evidence of intellectual honesty. The "it's settled" quote, I believe came from hog-caller Al Gore.

Here's what Jones said:

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

[Answer]

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.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[BubberMiley]

How does something fail the threshold of significance, but actually be significant?

You don't really know what statistical significance means, do you? You could try looking it up on Wikipedia before you shoot your mouth off. The most important thing to remember is that statistical significance is chosen arbitrarily, but in this case (and conventionally) they use the level of 5%. The data in this case for this cherry-picked period of time was close to 5% but not quite. Therefore, in statistical jargon it does not quite reach "significance," but it is darn close, and if you took a better sample (i.e., a longer period of time) you would reach "significance."

That does not mean, in reality and away from statistical jargon, this change is not practically significant (i.e., potentially life-changing). The funny thing is, something can be "statistically significant" but not "practically signifcant" at all, so even if that data were "significant", it still might not be a big deal.

Can you see now how you're being misleading, or did you know you were being misleading all along and didn't care?

Edited February 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Oleg Bach]

They trust the ones I refer to as hog-callers, which is the dumbest thing I can think of. These are the commentators such as Glenn Beck, Al Gore, and Rush Limbaugh that misquote, shade the truth and generally use deception.

Beck particularly irks me, because he is the most popular one (I think) and he has admitted that he believes in Global Warming, despite devoting major airtime on his show to the opposite viewpoint. See my other thread on that.

The thrust of the power of civilzation consists of those that rule though deception and violent threat..sometimes being powerless is ultmate power...and to realize that we are not civlized or honest is the first step towards real power..those that as the saying goes "There are violent men that try to take heaven (earth) by force" This is the nectar of human failure. Stand tall and know- you are kings and queens and this earth is truely yours because you are truely civlized and honourable.

[eyeball]

IOW, for Phil Jones to answer a question with "Yes but... " is tantamount to admitting that the science is not settled. Jones has no choice but to admit this because in fact, the science is not settled. We just don't know.

But you still have a decision to make.

I read a letter to an editor somewhere that nicely captures where the layman is left in all this. If 9 doctors diagnosed you with cancer and prescribed immediate surgery and radiation but one doctor said you were fine and that you didn't need any treatment at all, what are you going to do?

[Shady]

But you still have a decision to make.

I read a letter to an editor somewhere that nicely captures where the layman is left in all this. If 9 doctors diagnosed you with cancer and prescribed immediate surgery and radiation but one doctor said you were fine and that you didn't need any treatment at all, what are you going to do?

That scenario doesn't fit with what we're talking about. I'm not referring to a doctors opinion, I'm referring to a mathematical test. Where something is either significant, or not significant. Coming close to the threshold doesn't suddenly make something statistically significant. There's a reason why a threshold exists, and it already provides for some latitude during testing.

Let's pretend the outcome was the opposite. And warming was shown to have occured at a statistically significant rate, but just barely. Should that matter that is was just barely? The AGW ilk certainly wouldn't think so. The AGW ilk wanna have it both ways, which is true intellectual dishonesty.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Shady

[Who's Doing What?]

At the very least the quote in Shady's sig should indicate that the answer is not finished with a simple YES.

Even "Yes...", would be a much more honest representation of what was said.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Who's Doing What?

[Guest TrueMetis]

That scenario doesn't fit with what we're talking about. I'm not referring to a doctors opinion, I'm referring to a mathematical test. Where something is either significant, or not significant. Coming close to the threshold doesn't suddenly make something statistically significant. There's a reason why a threshold exists, and it already provides for some latitude during testing.

Let's pretend the outcome was the opposite. And warming was shown to have occured at a statistically significant rate, but just barely. Should that matter that is was just barely? The AGW ilk certainly wouldn't think so. The AGW ilk wanna have it both ways, which is true intellectual dishonesty.

In 6 years when the warming does become statistically significant what will you say?

Also what do you have to say to the fact that the warming from 1975-2009 is statistically significant?

Edited February 27, 2010 by TrueMetis

[eyeball]

That scenario doesn't fit with what we're talking about. I'm not referring to a doctors opinion, I'm referring to a mathematical test.

Whether its a mathematical test or a biopsy test, at the end of the day the layman still relies on the opinions of the scientists or doctors that took/gave it.

So one doctor out of the 9 who says you have cancer fudged a finding and you still have 8 more telling you to do something immediately. What do you do then, question their political leanings?

Edited February 27, 2010 by eyeball

[Shady]

In 6 years when the warming does become statistically significant what will you say?

Who's to say it will?

Also what do you have to say to the fact that the warming from 1975-2009 is statistically significant?

The warming during the medieval period was statistically significant as well. It doesn't mean it was man-made. Can you explain to me why that warming occured? And can you then explain why the earth cooled after that? And then can you explain why it warmed back up? And then cooled back down? And warmed back up? Etc, etc, etc.

[waldo]

That scenario doesn't fit with what we're talking about. I'm not referring to a doctors opinion, I'm referring to a mathematical test. Where something is either significant, or not significant. Coming close to the threshold doesn't suddenly make something statistically significant. There's a reason why a threshold exists, and it already provides for some latitude during testing.

Let's pretend the outcome was the opposite. And warming was shown to have occured at a statistically significant rate, but just barely. Should that matter that is was just barely? The AGW ilk certainly wouldn't think so. The AGW ilk wanna have it both ways, which is true intellectual dishonesty.

Shady, why do you refuse to answer the question posed to you?

why not adjust your signature to also include reference to the statistical significance of the CRU data over periods greater than 15 years in time? Obviously, the concept of data trending and interval period impacts therein, is certainly beyond your minuscule understanding. Shady... it's clear your intellectual dishonesty is only limited to periods of less than 15 years duration... reclaim your lost intellectual honesty Shady... open up your signature to the complete record. The complete data record will set you free Shady!

[Smallc]

The warming during the medieval period was statistically significant as well.

In other words, it's not statistically significant, and even if it was, it wouldn't matter to you.

[waldo]

In other words, it's not statistically significant, and even if it was, it wouldn't matter to you.

should we send Shady on a denier blog scurry about? Should we ask Shady to discuss favoured positions on the MWP global versus regional debate... and the implications, either way?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Who's to say it will?

The graph in the article which has the smallest statistically significant period of 20 years. 1995 to 2016 would show significance. Whether it is warming or cooling is another question.

The warming during the medieval period was statistically significant as well. It doesn't mean it was man-made. Can you explain to me why that warming occured? And can you then explain why the earth cooled after that? And then can you explain why it warmed back up? And then cooled back down? And warmed back up? Etc, etc, etc.

First it has to be shown this was a global event not a local one. If you can't than it is unimportant.

Edited February 27, 2010 by TrueMetis

[BubberMiley]

The warming during the medieval period was statistically significant as well. It doesn't mean it was man-made.

So your strategy is to close your eyes and scream that there is no warming and that everyone who says there is warming is lying.

Once that fails and you are forced to acknowledge the incontrovertable proof of warming, you say the warming must not be man-made.

Then you go back to calling everyone a liar and saying all evidence of warming is untrue.

It's difficult to argue with someone who obviously doesn't even believe what he says himself.

[waldo]

So your strategy is to close your eyes and scream that there is no warming and that everyone who says there is warming is lying.

Once that fails and you are forced to acknowledge the incontrovertable proof of warming, you say the warming must not be man-made.

Then you go back to calling everyone a liar and saying all evidence of warming is untrue.

It's difficult to argue with someone who obviously doesn't even believe what he says himself.

it's obvious Shady doesn't bother with the niceties of truth and context. His latest display shows up in his MLW 'status update' message... one that followed from a post where he incorrectly attributes a quote (a phrase) to the IPCC ("their words", he babbles). Even though his reading comprehension difficulty was pointed out to him in that post, he still opts to put the same (his) misunderstanding of who originated that quote (that phrase) within his status update message. Shady's intellectual dishonesty - on display... loud and proud!

[Pliny]

Waldo, Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo, Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo, Waldo, Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo, Waldo!

Waldo, Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo, Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo, Waldo, Waldo, Waldo! Waldo, Waldo, Waldo!

[Shady]

So your strategy is to close your eyes and scream that there is no warming and that everyone who says there is warming is lying.

Nope, that's complete nonsense. That's not my position at all.

[waldo]

So your strategy is to close your eyes and scream that there is no warming and that everyone who says there is warming is lying.

Once that fails and you are forced to acknowledge the incontrovertable proof of warming, you say the warming must not be man-made.

Then you go back to calling everyone a liar and saying all evidence of warming is untrue.

It's difficult to argue with someone who obviously doesn't even believe what he says himself

Nope, that's complete nonsense. That's not my position at all.

oh ya, Shady... clearly, the intellectual dishonesty in your signature and your posting history is a testament to the accuracy of BubberMiley's statement.

hey Pliny - do you have something you'd like to say?

[wyly]

Who's to say it will?

The warming during the medieval period was statistically significant as well. It doesn't mean it was man-made. Can you explain to me why that warming occured? And can you then explain why the earth cooled after that? And then can you explain why it warmed back up? And then cooled back down? And warmed back up? Etc, etc, etc.

that irrelevant misdirection...if someone drops dead on a T.O. street corner tomorrow is there a link to someone who dropped dead on street corner in Paris a thousand years ago?...different times, different causes one does not need to have anything in common with the other...planetary warming and cooling over time can be from different causes...

[wyly]

hey Pliny - do you have something you'd like to say?

I've been waiting months for Pliny to verify his accusations all our talking points come from Gore and Suzuki, he promised to go through all our posts and prove it...still waiting....

[Pliny]

I've been waiting months for Pliny to verify his accusations all our talking points come from Gore and Suzuki, he promised to go through all our posts and prove it...still waiting....

I never said all your talking points come from Gore and Suzuki. You do approve of them no doubt.

Take a look at Waldo's profile. Whose picture is that?

Waldo won't disclose his vested interest in promoting anthropogenic climate change.

If he isn't making a good living from it he is just a fool helping Gore and Suzuki make a good living at it.

[waldo]

So your strategy is to close your eyes and scream that there is no warming and that everyone who says there is warming is lying.

Once that fails and you are forced to acknowledge the incontrovertable proof of warming, you say the warming must not be man-made.

Then you go back to calling everyone a liar and saying all evidence of warming is untrue.

It's difficult to argue with someone who obviously doesn't even believe what he says himself

Nope, that's complete nonsense. That's not my position at all.

oh ya, Shady... clearly, the intellectual dishonesty in your signature and your posting history is a testament to the accuracy of BubberMiley's statement.

an excellent new Crock Video that specifically highlights Shady's described intellectual dishonesty!