Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

[TimG]

You're now hyperbolizing as well as putting words in my mouth.

I am not putting any words in your mouth. You are the one that said one cannot trust science without trusting scientific institutions. The distinction exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

The fact is you cannot have any reasonable discussions on these topics unless you accept that it is legitimate to separate a trust in science from a trust in scientific institutions. Insisting that they are inseparable is a propaganda tactic used to shutdown debate and to de-legitimize criticism of scientific institutions.

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

You're now hyperbolizing as well as putting words in my mouth.

yes... the last vestiges of the TimG self-claimed "legitimate skepticism" - false equivalency, hyperbole, conspiracy! But really, what recourse does a fake-skeptic have when he can't argue the science itself?

[Shady]

Unfortunately, scientists credibility has eroded over the last several years, mostly due to their own dishonesty, secrecy, politicization. The "hide the decline" didn't help. Either did their over the top, alarmist predictions.

[waldo]

Unfortunately, scientists credibility has eroded over the last several years, mostly due to their own dishonesty, secrecy, politicization. The "hide the decline" didn't help. Either did their over the top, alarmist predictions.

you have absolutely no credibility - none. That you dare to bring up the fallacious "hide the decline" paints you for the disingenuous denier you are.

[Shady]

you have absolutely no credibility - none. That you dare to bring up the fallacious "hide the decline" paints you for the disingenuous denier you are.

Riiiight. I could bring up all of the emails of your heros colaborating to silence fellow scientists and kill peer reviewed research that differed from their way of thinking. It's quite Nixonian.

[TimG]

Riiiight. I could bring up all of the emails of your heros colaborating to silence fellow scientists and kill peer reviewed research that differed from their way of thinking. It's quite Nixonian.

Waldo is a fanatic that endlessly repeats the same talking points while demonstrating no understanding of the underlying issues. Sometimes I wonder if he is really a bot programmed to produce spam in response to certain key words. Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Riiiight. I could bring up all of the emails of your heros colaborating to silence fellow scientists and kill peer reviewed research that differed from their way of thinking. It's quite Nixonian.

you could presume to do that... you could presume to dwell in the nothingness of Hackergate. Of course, even if... if... one gave your continued Hackergate fervour any attention, any recognition, at the end of your fake-outrage, you're left with a veritable handful of scientists involved to allow you to make your grandiose Nixonian leaps of ShadyAssessment.

[waldo]

Waldo is

science got you down, lil' buddy?

[bleeding heart]

Which is the same as saying you can't be a Christian unless you trust the Catholic Church.

He's not saying anything of the kind. He disagreed with one of your opinions, and he did so respectfully, in my view.

You're undoubtedly a really decent man, but you're being a prickly pear on a matter which I think you're misreading.

[waldo]

decent man

there is nothing even remotely decent related to a TimG Concern-Troll, fake-skeptic position... particularly one that chooses to purposely cast all AGW proponent scientists as dishonest and fraudulent... specifically one that chooses to label scientific institutions/organizations and academia as conspiracy bodies... pointedly one that refuses to accept prevailing and consensus science in favour of projecting upon and continuing a MLW history of denigrating science/scientists with themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption... and lying liars! There is no decency - none!

[bleeding heart]

Sometimes I make an effort to be friendly. Strength or weakness? It's not clear, maybe, but I believe it's overall a positive impulse.

It's not related to the insanity of denialists, believe me.

I personally know a couple of Creationists who are lovely, lovely people--deluded, even dangerously deluded, as they defend the forces of ignorance over enlightenment...but still, yes, unquestionably, "decent" folk.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not putting any words in your mouth. You are the one that said one cannot trust science without trusting scientific institutions. The distinction exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Let's split the atom some more then: you can't trust science without trusting scientific institutions - and in fact you do trust them but you don't trust all of them.

As for the idea that institutions don't represent themselves honestly, or however you characterized that. I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

The fact is you cannot have any reasonable discussions on these topics unless you accept that it is legitimate to separate a trust in science from a trust in scientific institutions. Insisting that they are inseparable is a propaganda tactic used to shutdown debate and to de-legitimize criticism of scientific institutions.

As I said, I can accept that institutions fail, that they are flawed, that they run at cross-purposes to science from time to time. To those who would distrust them 100% on those grounds, I ask you to suggest an alternative. It's the flip side to those who claim corporations are all evil. Does that mean free enterprise is hopelessly corrupt ?

Trust but verify, you say, and the peer review process should do this effectively and should do it practically all of the time.

[TimG]

To those who would distrust them 100% on those grounds, I ask you to suggest an alternative.

You are the one who framed the discussion by asking a poster "do you trust science". You are the one who framed the debate as accepting all science unquestionably or reject all science. I was responding to question you framed. If you want to change the framing and acknowledge that not all science is equal then I will acknowledge that not all scientific institutions are equal. Some are better than others.

Trust but verify, you say, and the peer review process should do this effectively and should do it practically all of the time.

Your opinion on this point is largely one of blind faith and not that helpful. I gave you pretty detailed argument on how the peer review failed in one instance and your response was basically a tautology: 'i don't care what evidence you have that the peer review process failed because the process can't fail therefore you must be wrong'. How can one have a reasonable discussion of the flaws in the system with someone whose automatic response is to reject all evidence as impossible since the system cannot fail?

People like you are reason why I say I don't trust scientific institutions.

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You are the one who framed the discussion by asking a poster "do you trust science". You are the one who framed the debate as accepting all science unquestionably or reject all science. I was responding to question you framed. If you want to change the framing and acknowledge that not all science is equal then I will acknowledge that not all scientific institutions are equal. Some are better than others.

It's elementary to say not all science is equal. I have taken pure mathematics at a university level, cross-listed as philosophy courses. Biology is the art of taking a frog apart without worrying about putting him back together.

Your opinion on this point is largely one of blind faith and not that helpful. I gave you pretty detailed argument on how the peer review failed in one instance and your response was basically a tautology: 'i don't care what evidence you have that the peer review process failed because the process can't fail therefore you must be wrong'. How can one have a reasonable discussion of the flaws in the system with someone whose automatic response is to reject all evidence as impossible since the system cannot fail?

Hmmmm... that doesn't *sound* like me.

If you're talking about the 'flipped sign' question... I do support the peer process and I'm not yet through the example in question. At this rate, I'm wondering if I'll ever find a concise and clear explanation of those issues. If not, and if I end up 'getting it', then I vow to make a video for others.

People like you are reason why I say I don't trust scientific institutions.

Hyperbole. How many such institutions do you distrust really outside of climate science ?

And that institution is at the precipice of a giant political issue that is infecting everyone who gets involved...

[TimG]

It's elementary to say not all science is equal. I have taken pure mathematics at a university level, cross-listed as philosophy courses. Biology is the art of taking a frog apart without worrying about putting him back together.

OK- then why did you frame a response to a poster questioning paleo-climatology as question of "trusting science"?

If you're talking about the 'flipped sign' question... I do support the peer process and I'm not yet through the example in question. At this rate, I'm wondering if I'll ever find a concise and clear explanation of those issues. If not, and if I end up 'getting it', then I vow to make a video for others.

I have given you an explanation that is as clear as it gets. e.g.

The data in the Tiljander dataset is so contaminated after 1850 that the apparent sign of correlation reverses. This means that any correlation done with the data after 1850 yields results that are meaningless. Mann 2008 selects proxies by first checking the correlation between the proxy and temperatures after 1850. This meant that Mann 2008 incorrectly selected the Tiljander proxies for use in its reconstruction. When the Tiljander proxies are removed from the Mann 2008 one of the conclusions of the paper is no longer true.

What else do you need to know? What questions are left unanswered? I asked. I did not get any concrete response. Unless you can explain exactly why that explanation is not sufficient then I will assume that ideology is the real reason for your refusal to accept the explanation.

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

OK- then why did you frame a response to a poster questioning paleo-climatology as question of "trusting science"?

This was the quote, that prompted my comment I believe:

"I never knew that there were scientists 300 million years ago.

Personaly I am very cautious about scientific claims going back in time more than a few thousand years ago."

If people have zero trust in science, then they should probably not fly, drive or ride a horse.

The data in the Tiljander dataset is so contaminated after 1850 that the apparent sign of correlation reverses. This means that any correlation done with the data after 1850 yields results that are meaningless. Mann 2008 selects proxies by first checking the correlation between the proxy and temperatures after 1850. This meant that Mann 2008 incorrectly selected the Tiljander proxies for use in its reconstruction. When the Tiljander proxies are removed from the Mann 2008 one of the conclusions of the paper is no longer true.

That's one explanation for the correlation reversing, but that explanation is contested as far as I understand.

What else do you need to know? What questions are left unanswered? I asked. I did not get any concrete response. Unless you can explain exactly why that explanation is not sufficient then I will assume that ideology is the real reason for your refusal to accept the explanation.

There were different methods being used in both instances as I understand. I thought I posted that already. I want to understand both processes before I comment.

[TimG]

That's one explanation for the correlation reversing, but that explanation is contested as far as I understand.

Tiljander paper is very clear: the data is contaminated. No one using the Tiljander data can change that interpretation. If they think Tiljander is wrong then they have to find a paper that provides the alternate interpretation and then reference that paper instead of Tiljander.

IOW You have no rational basis for your claim that the "explanation is contested". You are simply repeating nonsensical propaganda intended to confuse you.

BTW: you have created a nasty little bit of circular logic that allows you to ignore this issue. You accept a nonsensical claim as legitimate and claim that you cannot pass judgment until you understand the nonsensical claim. Unfortunately, no one will ever be able to clearly explain the nonsensical claim because it is nonsense so you can be forever protected from ever having to admit that the peer review process failed.

Such circular logic traps are a good example of how smart people can fool themselves into believing things that are not true.

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Tiljander paper is very clear: the data is contaminated. No one using the Tiljander data can change that interpretation. If they think Tiljander is wrong then they have to find a paper that provides the alternate interpretation and then reference that paper instead of Tiljander.

IOW You have no rational basis for your claim that the "explanation is contested". You are simply repeating nonsensical propaganda intended to confuse you.

It's contested on science blogs, which I'm only accepting because you submit that there's a valid forum for discussion there. Otherwise, we can just leave it to peer review and be done with this.

BTW: you have created a nasty little bit of circular logic that allows you to ignore this issue. You accept a nonsensical claim as legitimate and claim that you cannot pass judgment until you understand the nonsensical claim. Unfortunately, no one will ever be able to clearly explain the nonsensical claim because it is nonsense so you can be forever protected from ever having to admit that the peer review process failed.

Why do you think it's a nonsensical claim ? You read it on a blog.

Allow me to explore knowledge through the same channels you do, please.

Such circular logic traps are a good example of how smart people can fool themselves into believing things that are not true.

Such as believing that institutions are bad, and specifically that scientific institutions are useless. Faith is all around us, I suppose... between human beings and the facts there it is.

[dre]

After reading this and the other thread and Im now in a position to officially announce that...

Mike Hardner is the most patient man in the history of the universe.

[TimG]

It's contested on science blogs, which I'm only accepting because you submit that there's a valid forum for discussion there. Otherwise, we can just leave it to peer review and be done with this.

You miss the point. There is a peer review process. Peer reviewed papers cannot reference blogs - they can only reference other peer reviewed papers (I don't have any issue with this part of the process). It makes no difference if some blogs can establish that Tiljander was wrong - Mann 2008 is still wrong to include Tiljander in its reconstruction because Tiljander says the data is contaminated. Are you now arguing that peer reviewed papers can reference blogs?

Why do you think it's a nonsensical claim ? You read it on a blog.

Because if you look at how Mann used the individual Tiljander datasets you will see that such arguments are pathetic deceptions designed to cover up Mann's error. There were 4 datasets constructed from the raw data - two were a mirror images of each other. If the argument that "Tiljander got the sign wrong" had any merit you would have expected Mann to get the sign wrong for both. He didn't. He got the sign wrong for one but not the other. This proves that no such analysis was done by Mann when he wrote the paper and that Tiljander is most likely right - the data is contaminated and useless. Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

After reading this and the other thread and Im now in a position to officially announce that...

Mike Hardner is the most patient man in the history of the universe.

Yes, it's been noted before. Good stuff.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Mike Hardner is the most patient man in the history of the universe.

And your response demonstrates, once again, that you are clueless ideologue that has no wish to understand things that undermine your ideology.

[eyeball]

Mike Hardner is the most patient man in the history of the universe.

I can't wait for his video.

[Michael Hardner]

Mike Hardner is the most patient man in the history of the universe.

And I'm going to need every ounce to delve into the scientific abyss that awaits me... it's like the Mariana Trench and I have my toes wet.

[Michael Hardner]

You miss the point. There is a peer review process. Peer reviewed papers cannot reference blogs - they can only reference other peer reviewed papers (I don't have any issue with this part of the process). It makes no difference if some blogs can establish that Tiljander was wrong - Mann 2008 is still wrong to include Tiljander in its reconstruction because Tiljander says the data is contaminated. Are you now arguing that papers can reference blogs?

I'm deferring to Waldo's oft-repeated point that the process is open for criticism since it's a peer review process.

You seem to be saying that what is discussed on blogs isn't material to this discussion. In fact, Waldo has expressed the same concern. My problem is that I'm not a climate scientist. And many people have that problem.

I have a degree in Mathematics and should be able to understand the statistical argument, though, and I hope to be able to do so with some help.

You seem to expect that I should take a point of criticism as the final word and stop learning about this issue.

Because if you look at how Mann used the individual Tiljander datasets you will see that such arguments are pathetic deceptions designed to cover up Mann's error. There were 4 datasets constructed from the raw data - two were a mirror images of each other. If the argument that "Tiljander was wrong" had any merit you would have expected Mann to get the sign wrong for both. He didn't. He got the sign wrong for one but not the other. This proves that no such analysis was done by Mann when he wrote the paper and that Tiljander is most likely right - the data is contaminated and useless.

I'm really sorry TimG but I didn't get this from the descriptions I have read before. I need to press on with understanding this better.