Intellectual dishonesty

[Smallc]

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.

And it's completely out of context.

[Shady]

And it's completely out of context.

How is it out of context? If he said no, would that still be out of context?

[BubberMiley]

It's a misrepresentation because you ended the sentence before it actually ended. He said "Yes, but..."

Edited February 26, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

It's a misrepresentation because you ended the sentence before it actually ended. He said "Yes, but..."

Sorry, but in science and statistics there is no such thing as "yes, but...." There either is statistically significant, or there is not.

[waldo]

Sorry, but in science and statistics there is no such thing as "yes, but...." There either is statistically significant, or there is not.

keep your signature intact Shady - never change it! Nothing could showcase your complete and utter ignorance, lack of understanding and outright dishonesty - it's perfect for you.

if you really want to play silly bugger... what's the confidence level being referenced? More important, what's the significance of the chosen 15 year period being referenced in the question posed to Jones? C'mon Shady - showcase your profound knowledge... why 15 years? What happens to that statistical significance if the timeframe becomes anywhere between 20 & 30 years... the accepted interval period for proper trending related to climate change. What happens to the statistical significance over a 20-30 year period, Shady?

you reinforce your absolute pathetic dishonesty every time you dare to justify your/that signature phrase... you've already used it in conjunction with your parroting of the accompanying denier refrain that's been blasted across the denialsphere and on into the mainstream... the deniers shout, "there's been no warming since 1995... confirmed by Phil Jones and CRU data". (Of course, they don't want you to remember they've previously pronounced the CRU data as "cooked & worthless"... because... the CRU data now has worth if a Phil Jones phrase can be twisted and manipulated around that data. There is no doubt, none whatsoever... deniers are the scum of the earth)

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sorry, but in science and statistics there is no such thing as "yes, but...." There either is statistically significant, or there is not.

Again Shady you are trying to imply there has been no warming when in the very qoute you mined it says there has been. In science there is always a but.

[BubberMiley]

keep your signature intact Shady - never change it!

Yes, Sady. They would call you a coward if you changed it now. You'd better leave it.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[eyeball]

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.

Isn't the 3rd option actually the same as the bad thing?

Edited February 26, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Isn't the 3rd option actually the same as the bad thing?

No, because it is strictly speaking a correct quote but without the inflammatory framing. As such, it invites us here to discuss it.

If it were one of the commentators, they would have cut off the quote and said "see, there is NO warming", which is dishonest.

[Shady]

Michael is absolutely right. We don't want scientists answering scientific questions like politicians. The biggest problem with the AGW scientists is that they've acted exactly like politicians over the last several years. They've so politicized and corrupted the issue, that they're barely more believable than the locally elected dog-catcher.

There is no such thing as yes, but, in science. You either prove something, or you don't. In this case, there hasn't been any STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT warming in the last 15 years. The rest of his answer is politics. And I specifically state that in my signature. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. It's pretty sad that most of you put more weight on the political side of his answer than the scientific side. We're suppose to be following the science remember? Not opinion and conjecture.

[BubberMiley]

There is no such thing as yes, but, in science.

You either have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or you're deliberately lying. Of course there is the potential for a "yes, but..." answer in science, especially when the question is phrased to get an answer that is totally misleading and irrelevant.

[Oleg Bach]

If you imagine yourself as an intellectual and you are a professor that professes his mental superiority then you are usually a dishonest person because you are institutionalized to a fault. Same as a con doing time in Kingston Pen tattooed and glued in his conditioning...is also institutionalized and just as crimminally minded as the professor.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael is absolutely right. We don't want scientists answering scientific questions like politicians. The biggest problem with the AGW scientists is that they've acted exactly like politicians over the last several years. They've so politicized and corrupted the issue, that they're barely more believable than the locally elected dog-catcher.

There is no such thing as yes, but, in science. You either prove something, or you don't. In this case, there hasn't been any STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT warming in the last 15 years. The rest of his answer is politics. And I specifically state that in my signature. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. It's pretty sad that most of you put more weight on the political side of his answer than the scientific side. We're suppose to be following the science remember? Not opinion and conjecture.

Not exactly. His entire answer is science. If he were a politican, he would have answered by saying "no" then mitigating it. He gave a scientific answer, not one to make him look good.

[Oleg Bach]

I call it the bought expert factor. If for instance you are involed in a court action and you need a hot witness- you can hire an 'EXPERT'..for about 2000 bucks and he or she will testify on your behalf - in what ever manner you deem neccesary to further your cause..all experts promote themselves as intellectuals and most will swim in the luxury of dishonesty if paid- directly or indirectly.

[ToadBrother]

Sorry, but in science and statistics there is no such thing as "yes, but...." There either is statistically significant, or there is not.

In science and statistics, making false or misleading attributions is a sure way to earn the contempt of your peers. What you've done is wrong, and by trying to defend it, you clearly demonstrate the extent of your moral depravity.

[Shady]

In science and statistics, making false or misleading attributions is a sure way to earn the contempt of your peers. What you've done is wrong, and by trying to defend it, you clearly demonstrate the extent of your moral depravity.

Complete nonsense. What you're doing reflects your moral depravity, not mine. Something is either stastically significant, or it is not.

[ToadBrother]

Complete nonsense. What you're doing reflects your moral depravity, not mine. Something is either stastically significant, or it is not.

How the liar finds it so easy to call someone else a liar.

[Oleg Bach]

How the liar finds it so easy to call someone else a liar.

Some character stole my mountain bike about six months ago-- then suddenly he and the bike appear at the scene of the crime- I say-- You have my bike...he retorts "LIAR" - strange how he would call someone a liar who he did know-- he proved himself guilty that moment- and at that moment I almost doubted my own senses--it was my bike and he instantly gave it back after his failed attempt at befuddlement through causing self doubt for an instance.

[Shady]

How the liar finds it so easy to call someone else a liar.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I'm telling you you're wrong. Please explain to me how something tested and found to not be statistically significant really is statistically significant? Which test is that? What's the methodology? How does something fail the threshold of significance, but actually be significant?

[Oleg Bach]

I'm not calling you a liar, but I'm telling you you're wrong. Please explain to me how something tested and found to not be statistically significant really is statistically significant? Which test is that? What's the methodology? How does something fail the threshold of significance, but actually be significant?

STATISTICS POLLS AND MOB RULE ARE ALWAYS WRONG.. because the majority practice intentional ignorance.

[waldo]

Complete nonsense. What you're doing reflects your moral depravity, not mine. Something is either stastically significant, or it is not.

hey buddy... notwithstanding you don't have a leg to stand on since you've already associated this to the "no warming at all meme", why do you place significance to the statement, as is... the statement, as is, even if one accepts your absolute dishonesty in not including the full complete quote?

again, what value, what significance do you attach to your actual, as is, signature quote?

[Oleg Bach]

Churches and the secular bureaucracy are institutional intellectual hypocrites that instead of getting rid of poverty feed on it to nourish their own existance.

[waldo]

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.

disregard??? For an honest correct answer... to a question that was purposely framed around a short interval period. The question was one provided to the journalist - questions were solicited from so-called 'skeptics'. The CRU numbers are well published... monthly updates are regularly provided to the global community. Trends are regularly run against CRU datasets... against all surface processed datasets managed by other organizations. The originators of the question knew the answer prior to it being asked... the question was designed to catch Jones in "a lie"... or... to hope for an answer that could be manipulated or distorted around the known short-term trending interval. Jones answered the question honestly... and attached the needed caveats to highlight the limitations of short-term trending. Of course, the rest is denier history!

Journalistic malpractice on global warming - From the Economist, no less:

Anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference between these two statements. At a longer time interval, say 30 or 50 or 100 years, Mr Jones could obviously demonstrate that global warming is a statistically significant trend. In the interview he stated that the warming since 1975 is statistically significant. Everyone, even climate-change sceptics, agrees that the earth has experienced a warming trend since the late 19th century. But if you take any short sample out of that trend (say, 1930-45 or 1960-75), you might not be able to guarantee that the particular warming observed in those years was not a statistical fluke. This is a simple truth about statistics: if you measure just ten children, the relationship between age and height might be a fluke. But obviously the fact remains that older children tend to be taller than younger ones, and if you measure 100 of them, you'll find the relationship quite statistically significant indeed.

[Oleg Bach]

You don't need statistics to show that the sky is dirty and the water unfit to drink..nor do you need a scientist or political person to state that the world needs a clean up. "I don't need a weather man to tell me which way the wind blows"- Bob Dylan...master stats man.