Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Citizens group about to do an extensive audit on the UN Climate Report. You might call it a "non-peer review" of the scientists' work   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

1624 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Apr 2010 at 5:05 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-04-29 12:26:11 PM  
Yes... because science is best performed by those not actually schooled in anything "sciency".
 
2010-04-29 12:29:37 PM  
noconsensus.org? I wonder if they're at all biased.
 
2010-04-29 12:29:59 PM  

OlafTheBent: Yes... because science is best performed by those not actually schooled in anything "sciency".


Someone one said that the problem with stupid people is that they don't realize there is such a thing as being smart. This article reminded me of that.
 
2010-04-29 12:30:53 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: OlafTheBent: Yes... because science is best performed by those not actually schooled in anything "sciency".

Someone one said that the problem with stupid people is that they don't realize there is such a thing as being smart. This article reminded me of that.


Pfft. Elitist.
 
2010-04-29 12:31:06 PM  
You know what I look for in my scientific method? People who start with a conclusion and work their way backward to a hypothesis. It's way easier that way.

Seriously, though. When are people going to learn that the way to "beat" science that you don't like is to produce new, better "science" that disproves the original? Poking holes in the existing science and then going "therefore I am right" doesn't help anyone.

I seriously learned this in like 5th grade, what were these people doing?
 
2010-04-29 12:34:46 PM  
After an exhaustive 20 second study my research group of freedom loving, flag saluting, tear in the eye of an eagle tshirt wearing citizens has concluded that noconsensus.org might be almost as biased (and full of shiat) as those guys who found the ark the other day.
 
2010-04-29 12:34:52 PM  

The Homer Tax: I seriously learned this in like 5th grade, what were these people doing?


These folks are so dense, light bends around them.
 
2010-04-29 12:35:05 PM  
I sincerely hope that the next time one of these people is seriously ill, they're forcibly directed to a faith healer.
 
2010-04-29 12:47:40 PM  
Yeah, because when I want an unbiased review of data, I ask a group of people who have no idea how to collect the idea and no idea how to do quality control and I get that group of people who say they know what they want in their website name.
 
2010-04-29 12:48:07 PM  
Wow...warmers get pissed when somebody questions their religion.
 
2010-04-29 12:56:08 PM  

GAT_00: Yeah, because when I want an unbiased review of data, I ask a group of people who have no idea how to collect the idea data and no idea how to do quality control and I get that group of people who say they know what they want in their website name.


That makes more sense now.

None of these people are qualified to review the data.
 
2010-04-29 12:58:07 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Wow...warmers get pissed when somebody questions their religion.


1/10

Pathetic attempt
 
2010-04-29 12:59:03 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Wow...warmers get pissed when somebody questions their religion.


It's not so much questioning as it is blindly attacking. And it's not so much a religion they're attacking as it is the fundamental tenants of science and the scientific method. Which have a real and measured positive impact on our standard of living. Not that these people would know that because both the concepts of "real" and "measure" manage to escape them.

Science is not always right. We used to believe that rotting meat would spontaneously form maggots. But then some guy did an experiment (to prove that idea no less) and found out where maggots come from. That's how science works. If something is wrong, you can perform experiments, analyze the data, and see that it is wrong and then either alter the hypothesis to fit the data or go all the way back to a brand new hypothesis. This blindly attacking because you don't agree with the political decisions being made in response to the scientific data isn't right and is dangerous to society as a whole.
 
2010-04-29 01:07:52 PM  
FTFA: "I suspect it'll be a month, perhaps two, before he's ready for prime time. At that point, there will be a friendly web-based interface for everyone to use. When he finally goes live, it's going to be an extremely powerful research tool. So there are good things in the pipeline."

Does it scare those of you who believe in "global warming" that this data will be public, easy to access, by everyone?

Does it bother you because you think that people aren't smart enough to understand the data?

Perhaps if everyone saw the data, and there was nothing to hide (which there is not, right?) then some of the skeptics might jump on board.
 
2010-04-29 01:08:42 PM  
 
2010-04-29 01:10:54 PM  

superdolfan1: FTFA: "I suspect it'll be a month, perhaps two, before he's ready for prime time. At that point, there will be a friendly web-based interface for everyone to use. When he finally goes live, it's going to be an extremely powerful research tool. So there are good things in the pipeline."

Does it scare those of you who believe in "global warming" that this data will be public, easy to access, by everyone?

Does it bother you because you think that people aren't smart enough to understand the data?

Perhaps if everyone saw the data, and there was nothing to hide (which there is not, right?) then some of the skeptics might jump on board.


I expect people like yourself will wave your hand vaguely in the direction of the data and say "See? this proves it is a hoax!".
 
2010-04-29 01:20:32 PM  
I watched half an episode of Matlock in a bar last night. The sound was off, but I'm now qualified to offer an opinion on Roe v. Wade.
 
2010-04-29 01:20:40 PM  

superdolfan1: Perhaps if everyone saw the data, and there was nothing to hide (which there is not, right?) then some of the skeptics might jump on board.


Are the skeptics going to provide any data that supports a counter-claim, or are they just going to say "There are holes in this data, therefore I am right?" That was my original point.

The reason science is awesome is because it's constructed in a way that allows the "skeptics" to provide their own data, and conduct their own studies. The point of science is "dogma is bad." You *want* to disprove commonly accepted theories, this is how scientists become famous. Copernicus didn't become Copernicus because he merely accepted the dogma of a geocentric orbit.

Science is not a religion, If you can prove it wrong - Do It! Simply pointing out flaws in existing theories is not the same as "proving it wrong," though.
 
2010-04-29 01:21:28 PM  

superdolfan1: FTFA: "I suspect it'll be a month, perhaps two, before he's ready for prime time. At that point, there will be a friendly web-based interface for everyone to use. When he finally goes live, it's going to be an extremely powerful research tool. So there are good things in the pipeline."

Does it scare those of you who believe in "global warming" that this data will be public, easy to access, by everyone?


No, not at all.

Does it bother you because you think that people aren't smart enough to understand the data?

I think most people are smart enough, but not competent enough. They'll let their preconceived ideas take over, they won't examine it critically, they'll notice one little thing that doesn't make sense and shout to all the internet about that while ignoring the rest of the data that explains why that one little thing actually makes perfect sense. It's not their intelligence I'm questioning, but their desires, motivation, and the influence that'll have on their analysis of the data.

Perhaps if everyone saw the data, and there was nothing to hide (which there is not, right?) then some of the skeptics might jump on board.

I used to be skeptical myself. I'll admit a lot of it was because I disagreed politically with most of the global warming supporters (I still do), but eventually I decided that I needed to actually research and form a solid opinion. So I looked into the data, I looked for references, I looked for arguments and rebuttals from both sides and checked their references and I came firmly down on the side that global warming caused by CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" (which is a terrible name for them by the way) is a real and measurable effect that is currently occurring. And that's how skepticism is supposed to work. You see something and don't take it at face value but you research it and figure it out. The people who are involved in this citizens group aren't skeptical, they already firmly believe with no evidence or reasoning.
 
2010-04-29 01:23:05 PM  

superdolfan1:
Perhaps if everyone saw the data, and there was nothing to hide (which there is not, right?) then some of the skeptics might jump on board.


And birthers would all be satisfied that Obama is a legitimate president and have no further issues whatsoever with his legitimacy if only he'd show the birth certificate, right?

In fact, superdolfan1, a lot of people have already formed their conclusion regardless of what evidence may or may not exist, and the full disclosure of every piece of data will only lead them to use it in a misleading way to further the conclusion they already know is right. Nevertheless, full disclosure is appropriate. But you know damn well it isn't going to change too many minds. People who for years have been calling data forged, false, or misleading aren't going to stop doing so simply because more of it is out there.
 
2010-04-29 01:30:09 PM  

Racht: superdolfan1:
Perhaps if everyone saw the data, and there was nothing to hide (which there is not, right?) then some of the skeptics might jump on board.

And birthers would all be satisfied that Obama is a legitimate president and have no further issues whatsoever with his legitimacy if only he'd show the birth certificate, right?

In fact, superdolfan1, a lot of people have already formed their conclusion regardless of what evidence may or may not exist, and the full disclosure of every piece of data will only lead them to use it in a misleading way to further the conclusion they already know is right. Nevertheless, full disclosure is appropriate. But you know damn well it isn't going to change too many minds. People who for years have been calling data forged, false, or misleading aren't going to stop doing so simply because more of it is out there.


Damn you Racht! I was about to post that rant. Seriously there is the (small) part of the global warming controversy that actually deals with the data, but mostly it's an exploration of the depths of epistemic bias.
 
2010-04-29 01:31:10 PM  

The Homer Tax: Are the skeptics going to provide any data that supports a counter-claim


There is good counter data. The UAH data is not considered suspect by any of the Deniers, but shows the exact same thing as the "modified" data sets that they scream so much about. Which is of course why nobody mentions it. If there really were significant problems, that data set would show a significant deviation from the "modified" data sets. There is not. Which is why they never bring it up; it proves they're full of shiat.
 
2010-04-29 01:34:28 PM  

superdolfan1: Does it scare those of you who believe in "global warming" that this data will be public, easy to access, by everyone?


It already is. But don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.
 
2010-04-29 01:42:10 PM  
there is a new "parallel universe" of online publications emerging,

Yeah - NRO, Townhall, Freerepublic, World Net Daily, Breibart et al really ARE like a parallel universe.
 
2010-04-29 01:42:49 PM  

GAT_00: Yeah, because when I want an unbiased review of data, I ask a group of people who have no idea how to collect the idea and no idea how to do quality control and I get that group of people who say they know what they want in their website name.


They didn't review the data. They examined the claim that all the sources of data were peer reviewed.
 
2010-04-29 01:43:35 PM  
i'm sure the UN climate report data will stand up to such a review. I mean - those guys didn't cut corners, right? I'm sure they've got nothing to worry about.
 
2010-04-29 01:45:28 PM  

Weaver95: i'm sure the UN climate report data will stand up to such a review. I mean - those guys didn't cut corners, right? I'm sure they've got nothing to worry about.


Look at my last post, go look at that data and shut up with your Denier bullshiat.
 
2010-04-29 01:46:17 PM  

Weaver95: i'm sure the UN climate report data will stand up to such a review. I mean - those guys didn't cut corners, right? I'm sure they've got nothing to worry about.


You know, my college term paper on the Crimean War may have been sloppily researched and cobbled together at 3:00 a.m. after binging on so much Diet Mountain Dew that my excrement was a pulsating neon green, but that doesn't mean that the Crimean War didn't happen and that the books I cited after creatively thesaurusising copious quotes therefrom did not exist.
 
2010-04-29 01:47:24 PM  

GAT_00: Weaver95: i'm sure the UN climate report data will stand up to such a review. I mean - those guys didn't cut corners, right? I'm sure they've got nothing to worry about.

Look at my last post, go look at that data and shut up with your Denier bullshiat.


now, now - don't get cranky. I'm sure these UN guys followed proper procedure, right? I mean, that's what you're saying too isn't it? If that's the case, then i'm sure a review of their actions will vindicate them. So you've got nothing to worry about. They have nothing to worry about. No need to get cranky with me about it.
 
2010-04-29 01:47:31 PM  

TheOmni: superdolfan1: FTFA: "I suspect it'll be a month, perhaps two, before he's ready for prime time. At that point, there will be a friendly web-based interface for everyone to use. When he finally goes live, it's going to be an extremely powerful research tool. So there are good things in the pipeline."

Does it scare those of you who believe in "global warming" that this data will be public, easy to access, by everyone?

No, not at all.

Does it bother you because you think that people aren't smart enough to understand the data?

I think most people are smart enough, but not competent enough. They'll let their preconceived ideas take over, they won't examine it critically, they'll notice one little thing that doesn't make sense and shout to all the internet about that while ignoring the rest of the data that explains why that one little thing actually makes perfect sense. It's not their intelligence I'm questioning, but their desires, motivation, and the influence that'll have on their analysis of the data.

Perhaps if everyone saw the data, and there was nothing to hide (which there is not, right?) then some of the skeptics might jump on board.

I used to be skeptical myself. I'll admit a lot of it was because I disagreed politically with most of the global warming supporters (I still do), but eventually I decided that I needed to actually research and form a solid opinion. So I looked into the data, I looked for references, I looked for arguments and rebuttals from both sides and checked their references and I came firmly down on the side that global warming caused by CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" (which is a terrible name for them by the way) is a real and measurable effect that is currently occurring. And that's how skepticism is supposed to work. You see something and don't take it at face value but you research it and figure it out. The people who are involved in this citizens group aren't skeptical, they already firmly believe with no evidence or reasoning.


Great post.

Frankly, I'm not against "doing the right thing", which is to treat the planet in a responsible manner, which includes conservation.

I am, however, against being TOLD what to do by certain agencies (O.D.D.?) and individuals, especially when these individuals seems to be getting something out of it. Whenever personal gain enters the picture, the entire process is suspect.

The only gain out of the research should be for the planet, but that's being unrealistic, because in our society we promote getting rich based on a need (and there's nothing wrong with that).

If this group that consists of non-scientists should keep their nose out of climatology, then so should non-scientists like Al Gore and members of Congress who have no scientific training. If you let one in, you must let the other in also.

Do I think that something is happening on the planet climate wise? Yes. Am I convinced that man is responsible for it? Not yet. The prudent thing to do would be to assume that the scientists are correct. After all, if they are and we follow their suggestions, what have we got to lose, right? But the obstacle to that is, again, greed on the part of those who have something to gain based on what they scientists suggest.

I suppose it's like religion, as someone mentioned earlier. We could compare those who have faith in AGW to those who have faith in God. Neither can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the faith is still there.
 
2010-04-29 01:48:45 PM  
Didn't we already do this a few weeks ago?

*checks article*

Oh. Some idiot, repeating her performance.
 
2010-04-29 01:50:04 PM  

Weaver95:
now, now - don't get cranky. I'm sure these UN guys followed proper procedure, right? I mean, that's what you're saying too isn't it? If that's the case, then i'm sure a review of their actions will vindicate them. So you've got nothing to worry about. They have nothing to worry about. No need to get cranky with me about it.


You sound an awful lot like this: "Oh, I'm not saying Obama's not a natural-born citizen, but I'm just asking, why haven't we seen the long-form birth certificate? He does have one, right? There's nothing to hide, is there? Surely he doesn't have anything to worry about. If he would just reveal it, all these silly questions could be answered and everyone would be satisfied."
 
2010-04-29 01:50:19 PM  

kronicfeld: You know, my college term paper on the Crimean War may have been sloppily researched and cobbled together at 3:00 a.m. after binging on so much Diet Mountain Dew that my excrement was a pulsating neon green, but that doesn't mean that the Crimean War didn't happen and that the books I cited after creatively thesaurusising copious quotes therefrom did not exist.


Just because the woman in the magazine was airbrushed and siliconed like crazy doesn't mean I didn't jerk off to the picture.
 
2010-04-29 01:52:39 PM  

Racht: You sound an awful lot like this: "Oh, I'm not saying Obama's not a natural-born citizen, but I'm just asking, why haven't we seen the long-form birth certificate? He does have one, right? There's nothing to hide, is there? Surely he doesn't have anything to worry about. If he would just reveal it, all these silly questions could be answered and everyone would be satisfied."


I am wracking my brains trying to figure out where you saw a birther reference in anything i've posted on this thread. do me a favor will you? just copy/paste where I mentioned Obama in any of my previous comments in this thread. Just point that out for me, would you? Because I certainly don't remember making that connection.
 
2010-04-29 02:00:47 PM  

Weaver95: i'm sure the UN climate report data will stand up to such a review. I mean - those guys didn't cut corners, right? I'm sure they've got nothing to worry about.


The first 4 chapters used citations from peer reviewed sources. After that it goes down. One of the worst sections used less than 25% citations from peer reviewed publications.
 
2010-04-29 02:01:51 PM  

Weaver95:
I am wracking my brains trying to figure out where you saw a birther reference in anything i've posted on this thread.


I said you sound an awful lot like that, not that you said that. As in, you're using the same kind of annoying rhetorical arguments and intentional coyness and obtuseness. It's called an analogy.
 
2010-04-29 02:02:11 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: Weaver95: i'm sure the UN climate report data will stand up to such a review. I mean - those guys didn't cut corners, right? I'm sure they've got nothing to worry about.

Look at my last post, go look at that data and shut up with your Denier bullshiat.

now, now - don't get cranky. I'm sure these UN guys followed proper procedure, right? I mean, that's what you're saying too isn't it? If that's the case, then i'm sure a review of their actions will vindicate them. So you've got nothing to worry about. They have nothing to worry about. No need to get cranky with me about it.


Again, if there were serious problems, a data set not considered to be manipulated would show significant deviations. The UAH data set is considered clean and shows the same data. You'd know this if you'd ever actually looked at the data. But hell, you ignore that on purpose so you can keep up your Denier nonsense because you can't ever admit that you're wrong. You're wrong, the data says quite plainly you're wrong, yet you have decided, in a completely baffling move, to say fark the facts and side with the people who ignore reality because they don't like it. You're no different than a Birther or a Truther, people I KNOW you make fun of. Yet you're one of them when it comes to climate science. Open you eyes.
 
2010-04-29 02:06:18 PM  

Racht: Weaver95:
I am wracking my brains trying to figure out where you saw a birther reference in anything i've posted on this thread.

I said you sound an awful lot like that, not that you said that. As in, you're using the same kind of annoying rhetorical arguments and intentional coyness and obtuseness. It's called an analogy.


no, it's called 'making shiat up'. you also tried to imply that i'm a birther. so let me ask YOU a question? have you stopped beating your wife yet?
 
2010-04-29 02:08:33 PM  
Wow, I didn't even notice that I wasn't the first person to call Weaver a Birther. That's funny.

Weaver95: you also tried to imply that i'm a birther


You're acting just like one. Different subject, but the exact same attitude.
 
2010-04-29 02:08:51 PM  

GAT_00: Again, if there were serious problems, a data set not considered to be manipulated would show significant deviations. The UAH data set is considered clean and shows the same data. You'd know this if you'd ever actually looked at the data. But hell, you ignore that on purpose so you can keep up your Denier nonsense because you can't ever admit that you're wrong. You're wrong, the data says quite plainly you're wrong, yet you have decided, in a completely baffling move, to say fark the facts and side with the people who ignore reality because they don't like it. You're no different than a Birther or a Truther, people I KNOW you make fun of. Yet you're one of them when it comes to climate science. Open you eyes.


Have I said anywhere that I disagreed with your statement(s)? All I said was that if things are as you suggest, then the UN report will be vindicated. so there's absolutely nothing to worry about, right?

my, my. quite defensive aren't we?
 
2010-04-29 02:08:57 PM  

Weaver95: Racht: Weaver95:
I am wracking my brains trying to figure out where you saw a birther reference in anything i've posted on this thread.

I said you sound an awful lot like that, not that you said that. As in, you're using the same kind of annoying rhetorical arguments and intentional coyness and obtuseness. It's called an analogy.

no, it's called 'making shiat up'. you also tried to imply that i'm a birther. so let me ask YOU a question? have you stopped beating your wife yet?


Is this the episode where Weaver learns about Metaphors?
 
2010-04-29 02:09:15 PM  
You don't need years of research or fancy computer models to see that glaciers are melting. You can go to Montana and see it yourself.

You can go to Mt. Kilamanjaro and see it yourself.
 
2010-04-29 02:10:08 PM  

GAT_00: Wow, I didn't even notice that I wasn't the first person to call Weaver a Birther. That's funny.


yeah. group minds are like that.

You're acting just like one. Different subject, but the exact same attitude.

no, I said that you had nothing to worry about. And for some reason, you and the rest of your group mind/collective went super paranoid and went on the attack.

interesting.
 
2010-04-29 02:12:06 PM  
Once again - go through this thread and show me where I've said i've disagreed with anything you all have posted. the ONLY thing i've said is that i'm sure the UN guys will be vindicated.

And you all went on full bore all out attack. I find that very interesting indeed.
 
2010-04-29 02:12:16 PM  
This could be a great chance to bring together laypersons and scientists in a common goal of improving research and developing scientific literacy. That's not at all what will happen, but it would be nice if it did.
 
2010-04-29 02:13:38 PM  

Weaver95: And you all went on full bore all out attack. I find that very interesting indeed.


Well, it isn't like you have a history of siding with the Deniers or anything like that.
 
2010-04-29 02:13:43 PM  

superdolfan1: Does it bother you because you think that people aren't smart enough to understand the data?


You must be new here.
 
2010-04-29 02:14:40 PM  

GAT_00: Weaver95: And you all went on full bore all out attack. I find that very interesting indeed.

Well, it isn't like you have a history of siding with the Deniers or anything like that.


speaking of a 'perfect metaphor'....
 
2010-04-29 02:18:26 PM  

Weaver95: I'm sure these UN guys followed proper procedure, right? I mean, that's what you're saying too isn't it? If that's the case, then i'm sure a review of their actions will vindicate them. So you've got nothing to worry about.


In a field as enormous as climate change research, it is inevitable that errors will be found--this is a good thing, whether by laypersons or scientists. Given the mountains of peer-reviewed research that have been conducted, the discovery of citational errors or the use of disputed information by the UN panel wouldn't constitute a refutation of the overall field anyway. I'm sure the "environmental experts" at CATO and elsewhere will say it does, though.
 
2010-04-29 02:19:28 PM  

superdolfan1: I suppose it's like religion, as someone mentioned earlier. We could compare those who have faith in AGW to those who have faith in God. Neither can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the faith is still there.


God cannot be proven at all, not just "not beyond a reasonable doubt."
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report