Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

**Wild Cobra** · 09-30-2011

So it's a lawsuit to obtain his dataset. Why not use that money to try to replicate his findings and publish the results, whatever those might be? That's how science works.

I see it goes in one ear and out the other with you...

Post 1588:

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That's the problem. The research was done, and cannot duplicate Mann's findings without giving one proxy 300 times the weighting of the others.

Are you now against FOIA requests?

**Wild Cobra** · 09-30-2011

The university had already demanded money up front for the data release and was duly paid $4,000 but still did not provide any do ents. Under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) the Uva are legally bound to allow the public access to Mann's records.

**Wild Cobra** · 09-30-2011

ElNono...

The problem with Climate Sciences and AGW is that there are a few small groups who do internal peer reviewing. There is no open peer review process. People are accepting them as "gatekeepers" and they do not allow skeptic in.

Isn't science suppose to be open, especially the peer review process?

**boutons_deux** · 09-30-2011

But there's no problem (for WC) with "scientists" who as deniers for Kock Bros and the carbon-extractors/refiners/burners.

**Wild Cobra** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

But there's no problem (for WC) with "scientists" who as deniers for Kock Bros and the carbon-extractors/refiners/burners.

Do you realize how politicized the IPCCC is? It is a political organization. Furthermore, to can skeptisism bby calling it paid for by the opposition is a real ignorant take. There is a valid point to being skeptical, and it really doesn't matter who funds them, but why they are funded. The AGW crowd only gets funding to show CO2 is a culprit. The skeptics get funding because the energy companies need someone in their corner to fight scientific fraud.

**ElNono** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see it goes in one ear and out the other with you...

Post 1588:

Was that research peer reviewed?

**ElNono** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

The problem with Climate Sciences and AGW is that there are a few small groups who do internal peer reviewing. There is no open peer review process. People are accepting them as "gatekeepers" and they do not allow skeptic in.

Isn't science suppose to be open, especially the peer review process?

What's closed about it? You can publish any paper you want and tell the world about it. If it's something new and advances the sciences (notice that advancing sometimes means refuting also, see the constant publication of papers invalidating theories or tests).

Again, who are these gatekeepers?

**Wild Cobra** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by ElNono

What's closed about it? You can publish any paper you want and tell the world about it. If it's something new and advances the sciences (notice that advancing sometimes means refuting also, see the constant publication of papers invalidating theories or tests).

Again, who are these gatekeepers?

You would know if you didn't ignore writings by the growing crowd of skeptics.

**ElNono** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You would know if you didn't ignore writings by the growing crowd of skeptics.

The fact that you know those writings, and that you're well aware of them actually backs up my contention that the process is entirely open.

One more time, because you keep dodging the question, who are these gatekeepers you continue to reference?

**Wild Cobra** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by ElNono

The fact that you know those writings, and that you're well aware of them actually backs up my contention that the process is entirely open.

One more time, because you keep dodging the question, who are these gatekeepers you continue to reference?

Why does it matter to you? These claims of peer review are closed. If they weren't then such litigation would not be necessary.

It would be like Al Capone having Timothy Geithner verify his tax filing.

It's real troubling to me that you trust without verifying.

**FuzzyLumpkins** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by Yonivore

No, but they have a monopoly on government and the bully pulpit from which to advance some positions while denigrating others.

I love how American 'conservatives' who have AM radio and Fox News, and a house in Congress, cry about lack of or unfairness of venue to express their views.

Yeah the industrialists who are by and far the major financial backers of the opposing view have no outlet for their views.

**ElNono** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why does it matter to you? These claims of peer review are closed. If they weren't then such litigation would not be necessary.

Actually, according to you, the litigation is about the data set, not the review process.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It would be like Al Capone having Timothy Geithner verify his tax filing.

It's real troubling to me that you trust without verifying.

Aren't you doing the same? Didn't you just said that research was conducted and didn't match the finding? Who reviewed that research you choose to trust?

The beauty of science is that given the time, effort and means, anybody out there can try to verify any claim made, and tell the world what they find out.

It's funny too that you bring trusting without verifying since on this specific topic, I'm actually on the skeptical side, since I think the model is way too complex to be analyzed with any kind of reliability. But I already made my point in this thread a while ago. I don't say they're right or wrong, I simply think we can't reliably know just yet. I actually don't think it's prudent to make policy decisions based on this yet. And ofcourse, I could be wrong.

**Wild Cobra** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by ElNono

Actually, according to you, the litigation is about the data set, not the review process.

The litigation wouldn't be necessary if it was an open peer review process rather than closed.

Originally Posted by ElNono

Aren't you doing the same? Didn't you just said that research was conducted and didn't match the finding? Who reviewed that research you choose to trust?

Of all the temperature proxies known, the only way to match the hockey stick is to give one proxy 300 times the weighting factor of any other. McIntre has shown the Hockeystick to be false, yet it continually is used over and over. People are distrusting the real scientists and supporting those who work towards political agendas.

Originally Posted by ElNono

The beauty of science is that given the time, effort and means, anybody out there can try to verify any claim made, and tell the world what they find out.

With all the lies and deception out there, and those trying to ruin other scientists reputations, the truth is being sought out. In court if necessary.

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's funny too that you bring trusting without verifying since on this specific topic, I'm actually on the skeptical side, since I think the model is way too complex to be analyzed with any kind of reliability. But I already made my point in this thread a while ago. I don't say they're right or wrong, I simply think we can't reliably know just yet. I actually don't think it's prudent to make policy decisions based on this yet. And ofcourse, I could be wrong.

And I am one that continually points out it is too complex for the science to be settled, but those advocating the political agenda keep telling us it is settled, and use unscientific words like "consensus."

It is easy to prove some thoughts wrong, but next to impossible to offer an alternate solution. I have shown the accepted simplified GHG model to be wrong in relationship to what the AGW crowd says changed between 1750 and modern day in the IPCCC AR4.

The recent link I posted in post #1576 is another piece of scientific evidence against the AGW crowd. Did you read it?

**ElNono** · 09-30-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The litigation wouldn't be necessary if it was an open peer review process rather than closed.

From the moment the paper was published, the review process is open, and the claim can be researched and verified (or not). Again, is the lawsuit about the dataset or the review process.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Of all the temperature proxies known,

That's not what I asked. Let me ask again:

Aren't you doing the same? Didn't you just said that research was conducted and didn't match the finding? Who reviewed that research you choose to trust?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

With all the lies and deception out there, and those trying to ruin other scientists reputations, the truth is being sought out. In court if necessary.

What lies and deceptions? You still haven't told me who these creepy 'gatekeepers' are. Who are they?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

And I am one that continually points out it is too complex for the science to be settled

See, this is where we disagree completely. I think it's too complex for science to settle now, just like sequencing DNA was too complex for science in the 1700's. I don't particularly think anything is too complex for science to settle given time.

The thing is, obtaining whatever dataset that person used in court won't advance science. Science will advance when a new paper with it's own serious, independently verified data proves the previous wrong, or builds on it.

There's also something to be said about "consensus" and science. The fact that the general theory of relativity is widely used has everything to do with consensus. Consensus isn't a bad word or unrelated to science.

**Yonivore** · 10-06-2011

The New Hockey Stick?

[B]ehind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade.

What isn't addressed is how many of the retractions deal with climate science. However, it does suggest there is less scrutiny being employed in the modern peer review process than used to be.

Elsewhere in the same Nature issues:

The voice of science: let's agree to disagree

Consensus reports are the bedrock of science-based policy-making. But disagreement and arguments are more useful, says Daniel Sarewitz.

**Agloco** · 10-06-2011

Originally Posted by Yonivore

What isn't addressed is how many of the retractions deal with climate science. However, it does suggest there is less scrutiny being employed in the modern peer review process than used to be.

The main factor I see is that research is much more multidisciplinary than it used to be. The borders of various disciplines are blurring more and more with each new discovery. This makes review a necessarily tricky venture in many cases.

Take radiologic sciences for instance. Papers have all manner of science in them from biochemistry, immunohistochemistry, molecular cell biology, organic polymer chemistry, nuclear physics, particle physics, etc, etc. No one person, no 5 people for that matter can cover all of those areas. Even when they are, it can be difficult to tell how cogently those areas fit together.

**MannyIsGod** · 10-06-2011

Originally Posted by Agloco

The main factor I see is that research is much more multidisciplinary than it used to be. The borders of various disciplines are blurring more and more with each new discovery. This makes review a necessarily tricky venture in many cases.

This holds especially true in the AGW realm. You have input from meteorologists, climatologists, chemists, environmental scientists, hydrologists, geographers, physicists, etc etc. A lot of the time the people reviewing the material don't have expertise in the subject matter as well as they should in order to review that particular study.

This was clearly shown to be the case with the recent Roy Spencer paper but in the end the science WILL figure things out. The retractions prove that.

The scientific community does a great job self correcting itself. Posting retractions as a point to something otherwise is rather ironic.

**Wild Cobra** · 10-06-2011

Originally Posted by Yonivore

What isn't addressed is how many of the retractions deal with climate science. However, it does suggest there is less scrutiny being employed in the modern peer review process than used to be.

Yes, and why I have railed against the closed peer review process used by the AGW crowd in climatology.

**Wild Cobra** · 10-06-2011

Manny, the Roy Spenser paper isn't settled. There has been ongoing discussion, the those who supposedly proved him wrong, are now being shown wrong. I did a quick search for the information I say a week or so ago, but didn't find it. It is out there though. I'm awaiting more results, but then... there is a slim chance I am thinking of a different author and paper. Think it's this one though.

**Yonivore** · 10-10-2011

Hey, Manny! WTF?

BRITAIN FACES A MINI 'ICE AGE'

BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.

And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year.

Scientists say the anticipated cold blast will be due to the return of a disruptive weather pattern called La Nina. Latest evidence shows La Nina, linked to extreme winter weather in America and with a knock-on effect on Britain, is in force and will gradually strengthen as the year ends.

Can we release the Kracken, or some CO2 at least, and warm this puppy up?

**Wild Cobra** · 10-11-2011

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Hey, Manny! WTF?

BRITAIN FACES A MINI 'ICE AGE'

Can we release the Kracken, or some CO2 at least, and warm this puppy up?

Problem is, CO2 is not the culprit to warming. The AGW crowd forgets their basic chemistry of gas solubility in liquids vs. temperature. The oceans contain (if I remember right) about 93% of the carbon, in the carbon cycle, it doesn't take much warming of the ocean to release (rather change equilibrium percentage) CO2. On top of they, it takes an average of 800 years for a complete cycle of the ocean, so the absorption or release of gasses is slow to respond to changes.

**Yonivore** · 10-17-2011

BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

**RandomGuy** · 10-17-2011

Originally Posted by Yonivore

ad hominem bla, look at bla the conspiracy bla! bla

here is a bla bla link to the bla bla skeptic bla article of the day bla....

Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.

Yonivore:

First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...82&postcount=7

Questions asked of Obstructed View:

First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=32

Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=29

Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...0&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=32

DarrinS:

Wild Cobra:

One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=677
Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1202

Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1075
DING DING DING!! First direct comparison of climate scientists who think that human are affecting climate to Nazis in the thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1335

Tyson Chandler:

Strawman logical fallacy:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1231

**RandomGuy** · 10-17-2011

Originally Posted by Yonivore

BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

Honestly, at this point, I give up on your dumb ass. I have argued for years with 9-11 s, moon hoaxers, Ufologists, and all sorts of idiots, but you take the cake.

I don't even think you believe half the stupid you post. You do it because somehow lying to others seems to amuse you.

I have no idea why a normal human being would do that. I have honestly come to conclude you are at least mildly pyschopathic.

Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

Glibness/superficial charm (check)
Grandiose sense of self-worth mmm sort of? prolly wouldn't be hard to find self-aggrandizing statements
Pathological lying check
Cunning/manipulative check
Lack of remorse or guilt check
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric) checkCallousness; lack of empathy check
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions check

(edit)

I dunno, maybe I am guilty of my own confirmation bias, but I just dont' see much in your personality that is really redeeming as a human being. You just lie too much, and make cases for things that are simply morally repugnant.

**Yonivore** · 10-17-2011

And I'm psychopathic.

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.

Yonivore:

First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...82&postcount=7

Questions asked of Obstructed View:

First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=32

Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=29

Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...0&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=32

DarrinS:

Wild Cobra:

One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=677
Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1202

Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1075
DING DING DING!! First direct comparison of climate scientists who think that human are affecting climate to Nazis in the thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1335

Tyson Chandler:

Strawman logical fallacy:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1231

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions