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.

(Science Blogs)   Good news: The climate "hockey stick" is a misnomer. Bad news: It should actually be the climate "reaper scythe." EVERYBODY PANIC   (scienceblogs.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, hockey sticks, Grim Reaper, misnomer, climate  
•       •       •

4272 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2013 at 1:49 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-24 01:18:50 AM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.
No, that point does NOT remain.  Yes, there are TONS of evidence showing that, over the past three hundred years (since before the industrial revolution) the planet has been warming, on average.  And, yes, there are tons of evidence showing that the carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing, mankind being the cause of most of that increase.  There are lots of evidence for a correlation -- if you limit yourself to the last 150 years.  It's that causation thing you don't have.  Piling on more tons of data showing the temperature increasing, or showing human release of carbon dioxide, does NOTHING to bolster the relationship.
As a matter of fact, if you do NOT restrict the observations to the last 150 years, but go back even 300 years, it's clear that we are in the same warming trend that has gone on for 300 years, and to which the industrial revolution, with its carbon dioxide release, has made no appreciable difference.  Going back further also shows less and less correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature.  If natural changes in carbon dioxide levels have little to no effect on temperature, man-made changes in carbon dioxide levels would be expected to have little to no effect on temperature.


people.virginia.edu
Yet again I should point out that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on the kind of simplistic kind of correlation you're describing.
 
2013-03-24 01:37:33 AM  

Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence. Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.


Bolded:  It's not an appeal to popularity, but popularity makes it stronger evidence?

It's NOT pink...IT'S LIGHT RED!!!

You really have no idea how stupid you are, do you?

As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.

Anyhow..
On to more debunking of inanity:

Why does what may be missing need to be *shown* by me?  I ask because, yet again, you act as if I'm calling information out as patently wrong, when I've done no such thing.
I'm asserting that it's not proven.  There is a world of difference there, but I don't honestly expect you to realize that, even though by now I've stated it about as many ways as possible and you still hound me with what I have not said.

It's as if I'm an atheist because I find the idea of God to be preposterous, and you keep asking me for proof and evidence.(rather exactly like that) What proof or evidence could I give?

The default burden of proof is on the original assertion(in other words, it's the duty of alarmists to provide proof(not only the warming, but the tying it to human causes, and establishing the rate specifically, as well as why it's dangerous to the future, if an we can make an actual change seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give 2 farks...that's a rather tall order).
Until that comes along, I'm free to be undecided, uncaring, or whatever word you would like to sub in that equates to skeptical(actually equates, not you being dishonest and saying denier, yet again).  I really am agnostic, not a denier.  That's the part you're refusing to acknowledge.  I don't disbelieve in AGW, the same way I don't believe in it.  May exist, probably even does, but to the extent that is claimed and all those other things above?

Meh, with the extensive reading I've done, I'm not convinced.

Also
Seeing as how government and politics are heavily involved, on both sides of the argument....
And how money is involved, again, on both sides...

To deny that there isn't money and power involved in change or status quo is to be blatantly naive.  That's why I never got into the conspiracy claims, they could just as easily be true for either part of the argument.  It's a blade that cuts both ways.

Anyone who isn't skeptical is asking for it.  You're falling victim to blind faith just as much as SteveB or Skinnyhead ever did, the only difference is the subject matter.
 
2013-03-24 01:42:22 AM  

omeganuepsilon: if an we can


and if we can

Meh, I'm tired.

G'night you god damned dirty hippies!

/figure of speech only
//repurposed from Planet of the Apes
 
2013-03-24 03:28:42 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.

Bolded:  It's not an appeal to popularity, but popularity makes it stronger evidence?


What Baryogenesis is pointing out isn't an appeal to popularity - the primary criterion is still the evidence itself instead of just the number of papers (while both exist in this case).You can think of it as corroboration and replication if it helps.


omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.


When one talks about a consensus on this topic, one is referring to the basics like the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that. While you're quite right to point out that such does not  necessarily make it true, it's also a very good (if not the best) heuristic we have.


omeganuepsilon: Anyhow..
On to more debunking of inanity:

Why does what may be missing need to be *shown* by me?  I ask because, yet again, you act as if I'm calling information out as patently wrong, when I've done no such thing.
I'm asserting that it's not proven.  There is a world of difference there, but I don't honestly expect you to realize that, even though by now I've stated it about as many ways as possible and you still hound me with what I have not said.


You may have misunderstood. The idea that Baryogenesis is putting forward is that in order to get an accurate idea of the state of knowledge on a topic, looking at a small subset of papers isn't enough - one must also state why the rest of the literature is somehow invalid ("wrong or could [be] missing something important"). I don't think he's calling you out on anything you should be providing evidence for.


omeganuepsilon: The default burden of proof is on the original assertion(in other words, it's the duty of alarmists to provide proof(not only the warming, but the tying it to human causes, and establishing the rate specifically, as well as why it's dangerous to the future, if an we can make an actual change seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give 2 farks...that's a rather tall order).
Until that comes along, I'm free to be undecided, uncaring, or whatever word you would like to sub in that equates to skeptical(actually equates, not you being dishonest and saying denier, yet again).  I really am agnostic, not a denier.  That's the part you're refusing to acknowledge.  I don't disbelieve in AGW, the same way I don't believe in it.  May exist, probably even does, but to the extent that is claimed and all those other things above?

Meh, with the extensive reading I've done, I'm not convinced.


While the principle you're outlining is sound, keep in mind that such agnosticism has a caveat in terms of the amount and quality of information it is based on. What this means is that said while agnosticism is prudent in the face of uncertainty, said uncertainty may be due to the state of one's own limited knowledge rather than an accurate reflection of the state of extant knowledge. What you should ask yourself is whether your "extensive reading" is sufficient to make an accurate assessment of the scientific literature.  Have you read what you think is a representative amount of the literature? Do you have sufficient background knowledge to understand said literature? Do you have even access to the majority of scientific literature in the first place? Etc, etc.


omeganuepsilon: Also
Seeing as how government and politics are heavily involved, on both sides of the argument....
And how money is involved, again, on both sides...

To deny that there isn't money and power involved in change or status quo is to be blatantly naive.  That's why I never got into the conspiracy claims, they could just as easily be true for either part of the argument.  It's a blade that cuts both ways.

Anyone who isn't skeptical is asking for it.  You're falling victim to blind faith just as much as SteveB or Skinnyhead ever did, the only difference is the subject matter.


While I do agree with the idea of refraining from the conspiracy claims or other sorts of source derogation, keep in mind the possibility that others (especially those with a strong scientific background) may not be relying on blind faith.  Do not assume that gaps in your knowledge mean gaps in other people's knowledge.
 
2013-03-24 04:58:46 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
 
2013-03-24 06:10:37 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: The large majority of papers

irrelevant
Reality and factual knowledge are not a democratic in nature.

You've had this pointed out to you a number of times.  Those papers are evidence, not opinion.  Pointing out that the vast majority of research conducted in the field supports AGW is not an appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the strength of the evidence.  Now, of course, all of that evidence could be wrong or could missing something important, but that needs to be *shown* not merely assumed.  That's the part that keeps getting left out, an explanation of why said evidence is mistaken.

   The point remains: nearly all the evidence is on one side of this issue.

Bolded:  It's not an appeal to popularity, but popularity makes it stronger evidence?


As Damnhippy freak pointed out, those papers build upon, refine, confirm and support one another.  Each paper is a bit of research, a bit of evidence and there are a lot of papers which support AGW which means there is a lot of evidence.  More evidence is better than less.  Continual confirmation of AGW from different authors, with different methods, in different fields means the evidence is strong.  It's 10,000 data points all pointing to the same thing which is much better than a few dozen.

Again, those papers represent an accumulation of evidence, not of opinion.  Or to put it another way, you're looking for the correct answer whatever that may be.  How would we identify the paper that came up with the correct answer? We can't just say this one paper is right.  It's not going to glow a beautiful white light.  You can't just look at it and know.  It would need to be confirmed/replicated.  That's what these references to the body of literature are about.  The basic idea of human caused global warming is correct because it is continually confirmed by more and more papers.


omeganuepsilon: Why does what may be missing need to be *shown* by me?  I ask because, yet again, you act as if I'm calling information out as patently wrong, when I've done no such thing.


No, I'm saying that all the evidence built up in favor of AGW could be wrong, but if that's the case then it has to be shown to be wrong.  Otherwise, those thousands of papers are strong evidence for ACC/AGW.  As long as you aren't saying anything is wrong without backing it up with an explanation then you're fine.  No, you're doing something different.

omeganuepsilon: I'm asserting that it's not proven.  There is a world of difference there, but I don't honestly expect you to realize that, even though by now I've stated it about as many ways as possible and you still hound me with what I have not said.


Ah, there's what you're doing.  Yes, you're saying you're skeptical, but you can't quite explain the exact nature of said skepticism.  It's a neat trick.  You can play a game where no amount evidence presented is enough because you'll never plainly state the threshold for being convinced.  It's like moving invisible goal posts.  You use that game every time someone brings up the fact that nearly every paper published on climate change supports ACC/AGW.  You sorta casually brush aside those mountains of papers without giving any reason at all.  That's the problem.  Oh no, you're not *technically* disagreeing with any of them so you never have to support your position.  Like I said, neat trick.

What standard of proof are you using?  What sort of evidence would you need to see to change your mind? What specific part(s) of AGW do you find unconvincing?  I've seen you post some vague criticisms of statistical methods employed in some papers, but you don't appear to have the background in statistics to make a substantial challenge on that front.  Is there anything else?  Dark matter is a good example.  It's completely reasonable to say "I'm skeptical of dark matter.  I'm going to wait until they detect WIMPs before I make up my mind."  There's a specific objection central to proving the existence of dark matter.  What is your AGW equivalent?

Agnoticism/skepticism is a fine position when there is a lack of evidence or in the face of competing theories (in the scientific sense of the word).  The more evidence at our disposal the more suspicious it looks when you casually dismiss most it out of hand, the more it looks like you're only claiming to be a skeptic.


omeganuepsilon: The default burden of proof is on the original assertion(in other words, it's the duty of alarmists to provide proof(not only the warming, but the tying it to human causes, and establishing the rate specifically, as well as why it's dangerous to the future, if an we can make an actual change seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give 2 farks...that's a rather tall order).
Until that comes along, I'm free to be undecided, uncaring, or whatever word you would like to sub in that equates to skeptical(actually equates, not you being dishonest and saying denier, yet again).  I really am agnostic, not a denier.  That's the part you're refusing to acknowledge.  I don't disbelieve in AGW, the same way I don't believe in it.  May exist, probably even does, but to the extent that is claimed and all those other things above?


This is exactly why I think you're blowing smoke.  Evidence for all of that has been provided by decades of climate research and accepted by every major scientific body in the world.  Why is it good enough for them, but not good enough for you?  Are they all idiots?  Have they all been duped? Surely they would have found a substantial objection if there was one to find.

The last part in bold is a political argument and not relevant to the science of AGW.  It is, no doubt, an important question, though.

Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.
 
2013-03-24 06:28:53 AM  
Well good luck trying to convince China and India that this isn`t just a chance to get ahead by polluting the fark out of the planet to gain a bit of extra productivity.

It`s like arguing about the position of the cutlery on the titanic. Put it where you like, unless you get China and India on board you are still sunk if things are how you say.
 
2013-03-24 06:57:30 AM  

LewDux: It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age


And someone gave you smartest vote! What's the planet is coming to?
 
2013-03-24 07:26:46 AM  

Baryogenesis: What's your threshold for 'proof'?


I take it you want the minimum proof required as you say threshold. Well science at it`s heart is all about accurate, repeatable predictions regarding experimental results. It`s not possible to have another earth to use as a control so the repeatable part goes out of the window so all that is left is accurate predictions.

This leads to the conclusion that there needs to be specific temperature predictions made in the past that are accurate in the present accompanied by a prediction for the rate of warming made in the past that is accurate in the present as a minimum test for whether the theory holds up.

As we are dealing with climate scale trends then the prediction must have been made 17 years ago or longer to establish a trend separate from noise.

That would be a start. Should be easy.
 
2013-03-24 07:44:38 AM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.


I'm pretty sure of that too. When you look at the advocates that produce the high sensitivity predictions, there's only about 20 of them.

Surveys that claim high support are cheating by asking only the questions on which there is agreement, eg whether the greenhouse effect is real. To place scientists who answer yes to that question in the warmer camp is utter fraud.

IPCC reports use the same techniques plus one more: a lot of the scientists they cite are really just environmental activists, with no scientific training whatsoever.
 
2013-03-24 07:45:35 AM  

LewDux: LewDux: It's very nice for you to stand up for completely random guy on a random web page, especially in this age

And someone gave you smartest vote! What's the planet is coming to?


Welcome to the "redefined" peer review process lol!
 
2013-03-24 12:01:46 PM  

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


I never said it doesn't exist, every religion has it's bible.  I'm also not ignoring evidence, I find the evidence dubious.

That's what most of my post was about and you're still trying to paint me as something that I am not.

You're either lying through your teeth or have the amazing capacity to actively fool yourself, or the ever possible troll who just wants to get my goat, or you're so ignorant that it's a wonder you are smart enough to use a computer and make a fark account.  Given all those alternatives, it's also possible that you're some combination of them as well.
 
2013-03-24 12:22:02 PM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.


Yet another example of how little GeneralJim actually critically examines the evidence he attempts to use. The paper in question surveyed only a professional organization composed of those working in the petroleum industry and related fields, while the bit he quoted is editorializing by the blogger reporting on the paper. In fact, said paper undercuts the point he is trying to make - by trying to tease out the discursive basis of 'defensive institutional work', it details how members of such an organization (with such self-interest) can form their opinion in ways other than in regards to the scientific evidence.
 
2013-03-24 12:33:00 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: As an aside:
The "consensus" doesn't exist, there are plenty of scientists that are against it(who also put out papers and studies and theories), and even aside from that, there are 101 different views within that supposed consensus. Therefore, even if the argument of popularity would be valid(and it's not, no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate it by changing the words), it still doesn't work.
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

I'm pretty sure of that too. When you look at the advocates that produce the high sensitivity predictions, there's only about 20 of them.


Including co-authors, there's probably more than that working on "high sensitivity predictions" alone, never mind the rest of climatology.


THE GREAT NAME: Surveys that claim high support are cheating by asking only the questions on which there is agreement, eg whether the greenhouse effect is real. To place scientists who answer yes to that question in the warmer camp is utter fraud.


You're quite right to point out that the specific question asked matters. However, such questions are openly stated and can't be considered fraud. Yet again, don't confuse gaps in your knowledge with deception on the part of others.


THE GREAT NAME: IPCC reports use the same techniques plus one more: a lot of the scientists they cite are really just environmental activists, with no scientific training whatsoever.


[citation needed], and somewhat absurd. To be a scientist in this context involves some sort of formal output in terms of the scientific literature (not grey literature) - such requires some form of scientific training.
 
2013-03-24 12:57:19 PM  

dready zim: Baryogenesis: What's your threshold for 'proof'?

I take it you want the minimum proof required as you say threshold. Well science at it`s heart is all about accurate, repeatable predictions regarding experimental results. It`s not possible to have another earth to use as a control so the repeatable part goes out of the window so all that is left is accurate predictions.

This leads to the conclusion that there needs to be specific temperature predictions made in the past that are accurate in the present accompanied by a prediction for the rate of warming made in the past that is accurate in the present as a minimum test for whether the theory holds up.


Keep in mind that scientific endeavour is somewhat more than just predictions (as a part of hypothesis testing) and repeatability (not to be confused with replicability). What you're describing are very useful ideas, but a bit too simple compared to what actually occurs in science, such as activities that could be called description. This is one of the reasons why a more basic idea, such as  falsifiabilityis instead used, but even that frays at the edges. It's an interesting topic to be sure, but I urge caution in applying somewhat abstracted ideas to the messy job of empirical inquiry.


dready zim: As we are dealing with climate scale trends then the prediction must have been made 17 years ago or longer to establish a trend separate from noise.

That would be a start. Should be easy.


It is. For example:
i46.tinypic.com
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate176 3 .html

Let me know if you wish to discuss it further, or if you can't get a hold of the paper (I'll put if up for you somewhere).
 
2013-03-24 01:04:30 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never said it doesn't exist, every religion has it's bible.  I'm also not ignoring evidence, I find the subset of evidence that I am aware of, have been willing and able to access, and have the ability to understanddubious.

That's what most of my post was about and you're still trying to paint me as something that I am not.

You're either lying through your teeth or have the amazing capacity to actively fool yourself, or the ever possible troll who just wants to get my goat, or you're so ignorant that it's a wonder you are smart enough to use a computer and make a fark account.  Given all those alternatives, it's also possible that you're some combination of them as well.



Maybe the bit in bold that I added would make what Baryogenesis is saying more clear. These are caveats that we all operate with. If you don't wish to address or parse everything that Baryogenesis said, IMHO this is the most salient bit:

Baryogenesis: Agnoticism/skepticism is a fine position when there is a lack of evidence or in the face of competing theories (in the scientific sense of the word).  The more evidence at our disposal the more suspicious it looks when you casually dismiss most it out of hand, the more it looks like you're only claiming to be a skeptic.

 
2013-03-24 01:58:26 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: IMHO this is the most salient bit:


IMHO it's the least salient bit, because I'm not dismissing it out of hand.  I've outlined very clearly why some things are dubious, albeit a small sample, directly to Baryo at his request.  If anyone is dismissing things out of hand, it is that guy.

As where you may employ fallacies and be dishonest on occasion, you don't continually stalk and harrass me with such things.  You at least keep it localized and can, at some points(as you kind of are in this thread), respond rationally without fabricating whole cloth the cloak that you want me to wear(though you do seem to fall into simply trusting what Baryo keeps saying about me).

As to what I find dubious.  In the process of science, say equations, if there is a small part that's suspect or wrong, the whole thing is highly suspect or wrong.
(as a simple example to illustrate the point.
If 1+3 is postulated to equal 5, as a small part of a very long equation, it throws off the whole equation.
For example
( 1 + 3 ) * 6 = 30

If you build a computer from scratch on a breadboard, but leave out random bits you accidentally knocked to the floor, you have something that is not going to function correctly if at all.

On top of that, when you start number crunching the way they do, averaging thousands of global numbers into a single digit, you're losing any rights to pinppoint accuracy, indeed, any reasonable meaning at all.

Did you know that having 2 legs makes you above average?
We simply MUST do something about that.

Plans based on an average, are, on average, wrong.

To further illustrate the point:

www.dartmouth.edu
and:

http://www.stanford.edu/~savage/flaw/

http://hbr.org/2002/11/the-flaw-of-averages/ar/1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveparrish/2012/10/03/the-flaw-of-aver ag es/

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/08/finance_and_the.html

www.investmentintelligence.ie

Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely large amount of highly variable numbers can lead to catastrophic failures in assumption.
 
2013-03-24 02:32:53 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: IMHO this is the most salient bit:

IMHO it's the least salient bit, because I'm not dismissing it out of hand.  I've outlined very clearly why some things are dubious, albeit a small sample, directly to Baryo at his request.  If anyone is dismissing things out of hand, it is that guy.

As where you may employ fallacies and be dishonest on occasion, you don't continually stalk and harrass me with such things.  You at least keep it localized and can, at some points(as you kind of are in this thread), respond rationally without fabricating whole cloth the cloak that you want me to wear(though you do seem to fall into simply trusting what Baryo keeps saying about me).

As to what I find dubious.  In the process of science, say equations, if there is a small part that's suspect or wrong, the whole thing is highly suspect or wrong.
(as a simple example to illustrate the point.
If 1+3 is postulated to equal 5, as a small part of a very long equation, it throws off the whole equation.
For example
( 1 + 3 ) * 6 = 30

If you build a computer from scratch on a breadboard, but leave out random bits you accidentally knocked to the floor, you have something that is not going to function correctly if at all.

On top of that, when you start number crunching the way they do, averaging thousands of global numbers into a single digit, you're losing any rights to pinppoint accuracy, indeed, any reasonable meaning at all.

Did you know that having 2 legs makes you above average?
We simply MUST do something about that.

Plans based on an average, are, on average, wrong.

To further illustrate the point:

[www.dartmouth.edu image 359x478]
and:

http://www.stanford.edu/~savage/flaw/

http://hbr.org/2002/11/the-flaw-of-averages/ar/1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveparrish/2012/10/03/the-flaw-of-aver ag es/

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/08/finance_and_the.html

[www.investmentintelligence.ie image 430x327]

Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely larg ...



While you bring up an important and very basic point about how one loses information about variation when using solely averages, I'm not sure how this specifically applies to the current topic. I've got what I think is a funny quote about this in my profile:

The average human has one breast and one testicle. -Des McHale.

The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

I'm sorry, but you may be proving Baryogenesis' contention correct that you tend to post "vague criticisms of statistical methods". If this is an example of the level of detail that you're using to base your assessment of the science behind anthropogenic climate change to be "dubious", then I highly suggest that such assessment is based on a very limited and superficial understanding of said said science.  That's not meant as a put-down, but instead as encouragement to read a bit deeper into the subject.
 
2013-03-24 04:02:04 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: While you bring up an important and very basic point about how one loses information about variation when using solely averages, I'm not sure how this specifically applies to the current topic.


1. You are correct, It is important, the broken clock just struck.  One could call it fundamental.  Basic, yes, but provides the foundation for further extrapolation and correlation, in the attempt to establish causation.

2. It is obvious you don't understand.

As I noted above, when a fundamental portion of evidence is dubious, that taints the whole body of any part it is involved in.  Any conclusion drawn from such evidence will inherently have the same flaw in it's foundation.

What's even more entertaining, is that while you admit it's important, you also state that you don't know how it applies, and blame my (supposed) limited and superficial understanding.

Project much?(rhetorical, it's obvious that you do)

You flat out state that you don't understand, how unsure you really are, but it directly turned it around so that it now appears to be my flaw, my fault, my error.

You seem to be of the Belief that you're infallible, a common self deception amongst true believers.
It's easy when you don't hold yourself up to the same standards as you do others.

It's almost cute how you and bary will actually agree on a specific point I make now and again, yet try to make it look like I'm some sort of heretic.  It's like you're almost self aware and sentient beings, on the very brink of approaching that 3 digit IQ barrier, but then fall under the (for you)intense pressure of being responsible for what you've stated.
 
2013-03-24 05:03:48 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: While you bring up an important and very basic point about how one loses information about variation when using solely averages, I'm not sure how this specifically applies to the current topic.

1. You are correct, It is important, the broken clock just struck.  One could call it fundamental.  Basic, yes, but provides the foundation for further extrapolation and correlation, in the attempt to establish causation.

2. It is obvious you don't understand.

As I noted above, when a fundamental portion of evidence is dubious, that taints the whole body of any part it is involved in.  Any conclusion drawn from such evidence will inherently have the same flaw in it's foundation.


Wow. In this case, you may have a beef with any science that uses numbers as the use of averages is ubiquitous. In fact the problem you described in terms of loss of information is common to any mathematical operation (unsurprising since an average is calculated by sum and division). For example, you lose information with addition - ifyou state thatyou are carrying a sum total of three oranges in your two handsyou lose information as to the distribution of said oranges - whether it's two in one hand and one in the other, or all three in one hand. The problem that you're talking about isn't something specific to climatology, but is inherent in any use of operators - and therefore inherent in any meaningful use of numbers.

What this means is that the fundamental problem of information loss you're pointing out would mean you would find any science that any use of numbers, regardless of the subject to be "dubious".I'm not sure you've thought this through.


omeganuepsilon: What's even more entertaining, is that while you admit it's important, you also state that you don't know how it applies, and blame my (supposed) limited and superficial understanding.


people.virginia.edu

What you stated about averages was important and valid, but it does not follow from that idea to somehow showing that science surrounding anthropogenic climate change is "dubious", especially, as I discussed above, the problem you stated is ubiquitous and common to all mathematical operations.


omeganuepsilon: Project much?(rhetorical, it's obvious that you do)

You flat out state that you don't understand, how unsure you really are, but it directly turned it around so that it now appears to be my flaw, my fault, my error.


My uncertainty had to do with the lack of a link from the general principle you stated to support for an specific argument about climate. I am aware that said general principle is pretty much universal, and not specific to climatology, therefore the link wasn't clear.


omeganuepsilon: You seem to be of the Belief that you're infallible, a common self deception amongst true believers.
It's easy when you don't hold yourself up to the same standards as you do others.

It's almost cute how you and bary will actually agree on a specific point I make now and again, yet try to make it look like I'm some sort of heretic.  It's like you're almost self aware and sentient beings, on the very brink of approaching that 3 digit IQ barrier, but then fall under the (for you)intense pressure of being responsible for what you've stated.


In no way have I suggested that I am somehow infallible. However, it does not take much to see that your knowledge on this topic is extremely limited. Again, not meant as a put-down, but an honest assessment meant to suggest the need for further reading on your part. Again I respectfully suggest if what you've outlined is an example of the level of detail that you're using to base your assessment of the science behind anthropogenic climate change to be "dubious", then I highly suggest that such assessment is based on a very limited and superficial understanding of said said science.

Come on now - it appears you value self-awareness. What does your self-awareness tell you about your knowledge of this topic and what that says about your ability to assess it in an accurate way?
 
2013-03-24 05:58:43 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: What this means is that the fundamental problem of information loss you're pointing out would mean you would find any science that any use of numbers, regardless of the subject to be "dubious".I'm not sure you've thought this through.


No, only "sciences" that attempt to glean useful information from using the same method, the sciences that claim precision can be garnered from averaging such a large data pool.

The "science" of polls such as FOX news reports on, yeah.  Dubious indeed.

Damnhippyfreak: What you stated about averages was important and valid, but it does not follow from that idea to somehow showing that science surrounding anthropogenic climate change is "dubious", especially, as I discussed above, the problem you stated is ubiquitous and common to all mathematical operations.


Again, I'm not saying all things surrounding ACC/AGW is dubious, but much of it does rely on the supposed accuracy of the "data".
Again, if you say 1+3 = 5, any equation you include that error in is going to be wrong.

That "It does not follow" is irrelevant, because I'm not saying "all" evidence is dubious(speaking of wookie argument..).  You've always got shrinking glaciers, and other things that are irrelevant(to the flaw I am pointing out) to fall back on.

Damnhippyfreak: My uncertainty had to do with the lack of a link from the general principle


Do you really need a citation that 1+3 does not equal 5?
Or how that it will affect the rest of the equation to include the answer?
That goes beyond the ordinary and into extraordinary incredulity.  Or extraordinary stupidity, in this case, if you prefer.

Damnhippyfreak: What does your self-awareness tell you about your knowledge of this topic and what that says about your ability to assess it in an accurate way?


That you are a contrarian nitwit.

I've explained it.  If you can't understand, either give up the trolling, admit fault, or the most likely...continue as you were in denying reality.  There's a word for that last one:  Delusion.

You recommend a better education for my supposed lack thereof, but I suggest some serious psychotherapy for your very evident mental state.
Likewise, I'm not being mean here, just stating the apparent.  Seriously, you either need more drugs, or less drugs.  Who know's, maybe all professionals can do for you is a lobotomy.  Either way, whatever help you get would be best for those around you.
 
2013-03-24 06:58:57 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never said it doesn't exist, every religion has it's bible.  I'm also not ignoring evidence, I find the evidence dubious.

That's what most of my post was about and you're still trying to paint me as something that I am not.

You're either lying through your teeth or have the amazing capacity to actively fool yourself, or the ever possible troll who just wants to get my goat, or you're so ignorant that it's a wonder you are smart enough to use a computer and make a fark account.  Given all those alternatives, it's also possible that you're some combination of them as well.


Exactly what I expected.  See, when you say the evidence is dubious, but then don't explain exactly which papers and exactly why they are dubious then you might as well just be ignoring them.  You're giving a hollow answer.   I gave you a simple task to show your honesty as a skeptic and you didn't even attempt it.  Dready zim came up with a specific stance and I didn't even pose the question to him.  I keep giving you the chance to explicitly explain yourself so you don't have these problems.  If you would just come right out and say exactly what your beefs are then we would need this back and forth.  But as I said before, you won't do that because you wouldn't be able to play this little game where you constantly move invisible goal posts and complain you're being misrepresented.

Baryogenesis: But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


C'mon omega, you keep saying you're tired of your positions being misrepresented.  Explain in detail exactly what is dubious.  Again, your lack of knowledge of statistics and their uses isn't an argument.

Actually, that reminds me.  You sort of accidentally hit on an interesting point.  Global warming is just a subset of global climate change.  Obviously, every place on Earth isn't going to increase in temperature by exactly +2C (or +3, 4, 5 etc).  Some places, like those in the high latitudes, will warm more than the global average and some other places may even cool.  The total impact of climate change will include much more than temperature increases.  Indeed, the issue is much more complex than a simple average will get across.  However, that doesn't mean said average is wrong or useless, merely that we have to understand what it's telling us and when, where and how to apply it.
 
2013-03-24 07:15:02 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: What this means is that the fundamental problem of information loss you're pointing out would mean you would find any science that any use of numbers, regardless of the subject to be "dubious".I'm not sure you've thought this through.

No, only "sciences" that attempt to glean useful information from using the same method, the sciences that claim precision can be garnered from averaging such a large data pool.

The "science" of polls such as FOX news reports on, yeah.  Dubious indeed.


Which is any science that uses averages, or indeed any that uses numbers at all (because of the loss of information from mathematical operations, as outlined in the post you're responding to). Averages do enhance precision (in relation to the value of interest) by minimizing the effect of unwanted variation within the pool being averaged.  Again, what you're saying applies to most if not all sciences, and according to you would render them "dubious". Think about this for a second - the speed of light in a vacuum, the atomic mass of hydrogen, the tensile strength of steel - all derived through repeated and averaged measurement and therefore science based on these "dubious" according to your argument.

Come on now. You're stating that climate science is "dubious" because it uses averages. Say that to yourself out loud, say it to a friend or colleague, if you dare. Think about it for a bit.


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: What you stated about averages was important and valid, but it does not follow from that idea to somehow showing that science surrounding anthropogenic climate change is "dubious", especially, as I discussed above, the problem you stated is ubiquitous and common to all mathematical operations.

Again, I'm not saying all things surrounding ACC/AGW is dubious, but much of it does rely on the supposed accuracy of the "data".
Again, if you say 1+3 = 5, any equation you include that error in is going to be wrong.

That "It does not follow" is irrelevant, because I'm not saying "all" evidence is dubious(speaking of wookie argument..).  You've always got shrinking glaciers, and other things that are irrelevant(to the flaw I am pointing out) to fall back on.


All science relies on the idea that the data it uses is accurate (given specific caveats and limitations, of course). What you're talking about is yet again a very general principle that is not somehow specific to climatology - it's a valid argument in of itself, but it does not support your claim about anthropogenic climate change.


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: What does your self-awareness tell you about your knowledge of this topic and what that says about your ability to assess it in an accurate way?

That you are a contrarian nitwit.

I've explained it.  If you can't understand, either give up the trolling, admit fault, or the most likely...continue as you were in denying reality.  There's a word for that last one:  Delusion.

You recommend a better education for my supposed lack thereof, but I suggest some serious psychotherapy for your very evident mental state.
Likewise, I'm not being mean here, just stating the apparent.  Seriously, you either need more drugs, or less drugs.  Who know's, maybe all professionals can do for you is a lobotomy.  Either way, whatever help you get would be best for those around you.


An honest and rational answer would have been more appropriate here. I yet again suggest you use your self awareness to ask yourself what your answer here says about your approach towards this topic. You've been caught putting forward a somewhat absurd argument. Man up and face it instead of throwing a tantrum.
 
2013-03-24 07:20:36 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely large amount of highly variable numbers can lead to catastrophic failures in assumption.


And with one flurry of typing omega discredited all of statistics and any field that utilizes statistics including, climate science, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics!

Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature. Cite specific problems within specific papers. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills.
 
2013-03-24 08:22:52 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: It is. For example:


i46.tinypic.com

Now, to me, if I look at this graph, the red line really does not look like it is following the line marked `IPCC (1990) prediction`. It seemed to for a while but it looks like it has started to deviate and the deviation is increasing. The years after 2010 have not been warmer either so the graph would look even more that way if they were included. If this is the case then the prediction is not a good one in my opinion. I`m thinking the next 12-18 months will be very interesting in the field of climate science if current temperatures continue into significance...
 
2013-03-24 09:35:24 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Which is any science that uses averages, or indeed any that uses numbers at all (because of the loss of information from mathematical operations, as outlined in the post you're responding to)


Averages as a specific problem =/= all use of numbers.

Ergo, your "most if not all sciences" bit goes right out the window.  You're painting "science" with a very broad(and innacurate) brush here.  Chemistry to physics to electronics etc all use very precise math and not very much in the way of "averages" as a proof.  Unless you want to count 1+3 = 4 as being a 100% average or some other inane factoid.

Damnhippyfreak: Think about this for a second - the speed of light in a vacuum, the atomic mass of hydrogen, the tensile strength of steel - all derived through repeated and averaged measurement and therefore science based on these "dubious" according to your argument.


These "dubious" what?

No wonder you can't grasp the concept that a flaw in basic reasoning can taint a whole study.

Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.


Because basic math is so hard to understand you need literature on it?

Calling you "above average" for having 2 whole legs needs scientific literature?

Jesus you guys are dense.

Baryogenesis: And with one flurry of typing omega discredited all of statistics and any field that utilizes statistics including, climate science, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics!


Averages =/= All statistics

You are both making the same mistakes in logic here.

Averages are ok for figuring out a rough trend.  The key word there is rough.
The process is not what's flawed.  The application of it is what can be, and in this case is, flawed.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misleading+averages

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misuse+of+average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

http://www.statsconsult.com/Articles/Misuse%20of%20statistics.pdf

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/ed-lotterman/even-a-simpl e- average-can-be-misused/article_9891f374-bdd2-11e0-a5be-001cc4c002e0.ht ml

From the above:
But supporting such basically sound positions with misleading use of some number is more likely to make knowledgeable readers shy away from one's argument than agree with it. And it certainly does not raise the level of public understanding.

Well that last sentence is very true if you guys are representative of the public.

As for knowledgeable people disagreeing with a principle, it's because when people lie/cheat/steal to get their way, we find it repulsive.  You two should know what being repulsive is like.
 
2013-03-24 10:48:34 PM  

omeganuepsilon: The application of it is what can be, and in this case is, flawed.


Wait, I think I addressed this. Oh yes, here it is:

Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature. Cite specific problems within specific papers. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills


Tell us, with all your vast knowledge of statistics, exactly where these flaws are.  We're gonna need more than "averages are teh worstest!!!1!" to take you seriously.  You can name all sorts of problems, but it doesn't mean anything until you identify those problems within the field of climate science.  You haven't even been able to articulate an example within the subject of global warming.  Heck, I even threw you a bone on that very point and you didn't even realize it (high latitudes generally experience more warming than low latitudes).

Here's an example of what I mean.  "Paper X took the temperature anomaly from a station at the north pole and a station at the equator, did an unweighted average and called it good!"  You know, a specific criticism of a specific paper making a specific mistake in their uses of averages.

Right now, it just looks like you think all the stations across the globe are just added together and divided by N.  But again, who knows, you won't actually articulate a specific position or criticism.


I think I'll keep posting this:

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


until you can actually put forth any kind of substantial reply.  I won't be holding my breath.  You'll never give specific answers to the questions in that paragraph because you're an intellectual coward.
 
2013-03-24 11:15:14 PM  

dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: It is. For example:

[i46.tinypic.com image 850x375]

Now, to me, if I look at this graph, the red line really does not look like it is following the line marked `IPCC (1990) prediction`. It seemed to for a while but it looks like it has started to deviate and the deviation is increasing. The years after 2010 have not been warmer either so the graph would look even more that way if they were included. If this is the case then the prediction is not a good one in my opinion. I`m thinking the next 12-18 months will be very interesting in the field of climate science if current temperatures continue into significance...


Not quite. You have to read the paper to make sense of the graph. Part of the problem the graph is trying to come to grips with is the fact that the 1990 IPCC FAR only included greenhouse gas forcing in the prediction highlighted, and therefore if you include natural variation the margins become fairly wide (you can get a sense of how wide it would be from the huge range covered by 'unforced variation' in the graph). This is so wide that the observations fall well within the range of predictions. So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.
 
2013-03-24 11:22:41 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: Which is any science that uses averages, or indeed any that uses numbers at all (because of the loss of information from mathematical operations, as outlined in the post you're responding to)

Averages as a specific problem =/= all use of numbers.

Ergo, your "most if not all sciences" bit goes right out the window.  You're painting "science" with a very broad(and innacurate) brush here.  Chemistry to physics to electronics etc all use very precise math and not very much in the way of "averages" as a proof.  Unless you want to count 1+3 = 4 as being a 100% average or some other inane factoid.


As I argued previously (and that you didn't address), they are the same in regards to the problem of information loss you're basing your argument on:

Damnhippyfreak: Wow. In this case, you may have a beef with any science that uses numbers as the use of averages is ubiquitous. In fact the problem you described in terms of loss of information is common to any mathematical operation (unsurprising since an average is calculated by sum and division). For example, you lose information with addition - if you state that you are carrying a sum total of three oranges in your two hands you lose information as to the distribution of said oranges - whether it's two in one hand and one in the other, or all three in one hand. The problem that you're talking about isn't something specific to climatology, but is inherent in any use of operators - and therefore inherent in any meaningful use of numbers.


When you talk about "very precise math", you're talking about the exact same mathematical operators that are used to calculate an average - again, an average is simply a sum and a division and produce the exact same loss of information that you're talking about. Simply put, averages are "very precise math".


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: Think about this for a second - the speed of light in a vacuum, the atomic mass of hydrogen, the tensile strength of steel - all derived through repeated and averaged measurement and therefore science based on these are "dubious" according to your argument.

These "dubious" what?

No wonder you can't grasp the concept that a flaw in basic reasoning can taint a whole study.


Sorry about the phrasing - it makes more sense with 'are' included in there. The point stands - your argument would have science based on measurements such as these somehow rendered "dubious".
 
2013-03-24 11:39:56 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.

Because basic math is so hard to understand you need literature on it?

Calling you "above average" for having 2 whole legs needs scientific literature?

Jesus you guys are dense.



You may have missed the point - Baryogenesis is addressing the specific bit he quoted:

omeganuepsilon: Trying to make such simple sense out of a extremely large amount of highly variable numbers can lead to catastrophic failures in assumption.


The idea is that you're positing a potential assumption in climatology, without actually providing any evidence that it did happen. It's the same point that I was trying to make to you when I was saying this:

Damnhippyfreak: What you're talking about is yet again a very general principle that is not somehow specific to climatology - it's a valid argument in of itself, but it does not support your claim about anthropogenic climate change.



omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: And with one flurry of typing omega discredited all of statistics and any field that utilizes statistics including, climate science, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics!

Averages =/= All statistics


Actually, if you recognize that a statistic attempts to approximate a parameter, more than one measurement of anything will necessitate the need for averages. You've backed yourself into a bit of a corner here - any science that uses numbers in empirical investigation or measures anything is going to use averages in order to increase accuracy.


omeganuepsilon: Averages are ok for figuring out a rough trend.  The key word there is rough.
The process is not what's flawed.  The application of it is what can be, and in this case is, flawed.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misleading+averages

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misuse+of+average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

http://www.statsconsult.com/Articles/Misuse%20of%20statistics.pdf

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/ed-lotterman/even-a-simpl e- average-can-be-misused/article_9891f374-bdd2-11e0-a5be-001cc4c002e0.ht ml


If the bit in bold represents you attempting to back off your somewhat absurd argument, then I welcome it. Unfortunately you're also left with trying to make the case that climate science is somehow misusing averages, something you've failed to do with both me and Baryogenesis pointing out a link.


omeganuepsilon: From the above:
But supporting such basically sound positions with misleading use of some number is more likely to make knowledgeable readers shy away from one's argument than agree with it. And it certainly does not raise the level of public understanding.

Well that last sentence is very true if you guys are representative of the public.

As for knowledgeable people disagreeing with a principle, it's because when people lie/cheat/steal to get their way, we find it repulsive.  You two should know what being repulsive is like.


Indeed, and in the same vein, more knowledgeable readers, such as me and Baryogenesis are very much shying away from your argument. You're misusing a basic principle in order to attempt to prove a specific point - and people like us who know better do, in fact find at a bit repulsive. Man up and get out of that hole you've dug for yourself. Many people, including myself, think it's a good thing when one abandons a flawed argument instead of digging your heels in.
 
2013-03-24 11:46:51 PM  

Baryogenesis: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.


Again, how I "need" to educate you. Or alternatively:
How I need to educate you.

 Sorry Sparky, that's not how it works. Fark's design isn't friendly to a direct and interactive teaching sort of scenerio. The best I am willing to do is deliver general concepts.  If you refuse to read as directed or follow links, the failure is on your part, not mine.  That is how you folks readily handle incoming questions, "Go find out for yourself, seek more education, hit up google..."etc.  Does it not work both ways?

Read the climate paper methodology reports. Some sites don't present them very well, you may have to click through several pages, but Berkeley made it fairly easy, and I know you know how to get to that website, you constantly linked it when you were trying to call me stupid for agreeing with them on some points.
Here's a hint, they average a LOT of data, and sometimes lead those results of averages into another more encompassing average.  Each stage of which can compound errors or nullify abnormalities(right along with useful data)


Now refer to my links on how averages can be misused(with or without intent) or extrapolated from.

And that's it.  It's simple, even you could do the required reading within a day.  Now, your ability to be honest about it, that's an entirely different matter.

You consistently attack me as If I'm bound by law to validate my opinions, to hold your hand while I teach you basic scientific method and ways people misuse or even abuse it.  I don't expect change.

It's there if you want to read it. If, if not, try farking off.
/sincerely wish you would hold your breath, your IQ couldn't possibly suffer from it.

The science as pertains to this topic is not above problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues

Not to say all of those issues apply, but many are distinct possibilities.

Combine that with the fact that earth's environment is a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part.  I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)
 
2013-03-24 11:52:17 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: you've failed to do with both me and Baryogenesis


Only because you're both extremely dense.  Like two peas packed into a very very tiny pod. No room for incoming information, hell, you barely have enough room to give dutch rudders.
 
2013-03-25 12:03:21 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: you've failed to do with both me and Baryogenesis

Only because you're both extremely dense.  Like two peas packed into a very very tiny pod. No room for incoming information, hell, you barely have enough room to give dutch rudders.



This kind of irrational and somewhat childish response only proves Baryogenesis right:

Baryogenesis: You'll never give specific answers to the questions in that paragraph because you're an intellectual coward.

 
2013-03-25 12:32:23 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.

Again, how I "need" to educate you. Or alternatively:
How I need to educate you.

 Sorry Sparky, that's not how it works. Fark's design isn't friendly to a direct and interactive teaching sort of scenerio. The best I am willing to do is deliver general concepts.  If you refuse to read as directed or follow links, the failure is on your part, not mine.  That is how you folks readily handle incoming questions, "Go find out for yourself, seek more education, hit up google..."etc.  Does it not work both ways?


No, that's not how that works.  *You* are the one accusing climate scientists of misusing statistics and averages to make their point.  You're the one calling into question the data so the onus is on you to show that it is flawed in some way.

See, these are the points you are making:

 

omeganuepsilon: Again, I'm not saying all things surrounding ACC/AGW is dubious, but much of it does rely on the supposed accuracy of the "data".


omeganuepsilon: And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd


You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.  By the way, that last quote is just an argument from ignorance.  You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.

But feel free to explain why all those climate scientists continue to use global average temperature despite its obvious absurdity.  Maybe you could send them a letter.

Oh, I almost forgot to include this bit.

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


When are you going to address the points I made there?
 
2013-03-25 01:04:22 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: Baryogenesis: Here's the part where you need to show that this has happened in the relevant scientific literature.

Again, how I "need" to educate you. Or alternatively:
How I need to educate you.

 Sorry Sparky, that's not how it works. Fark's design isn't friendly to a direct and interactive teaching sort of scenerio. The best I am willing to do is deliver general concepts.  If you refuse to read as directed or follow links, the failure is on your part, not mine.  That is how you folks readily handle incoming questions, "Go find out for yourself, seek more education, hit up google..."etc.  Does it not work both ways?

Read the climate paper methodology reports. Some sites don't present them very well, you may have to click through several pages, but Berkeley made it fairly easy, and I know you know how to get to that website, you constantly linked it when you were trying to call me stupid for agreeing with them on some points.
Here's a hint, they average a LOT of data, and sometimes lead those results of averages into another more encompassing average.  Each stage of which can compound errors or nullify abnormalities(right along with useful data)

Now refer to my links on how averages can be misused(with or without intent) or extrapolated from.


omeganuepsilon: Not to say all of those issues apply, but many are distinct possibilities.


You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science. Again, if you're relying on some sort of mistrust of averages in general, the list of sciences you would have a problem with is comprehensive, for lack of a better word.


omeganuepsilon: And that's it.  It's simple, even you could do the required reading within a day.  Now, your ability to be honest about it, that's an entirely different matter.

You consistently attack me as If I'm bound by law to validate my opinions, to hold your hand while I teach you basic scientific method and ways people misuse or even abuse it.  I don't expect change.


The idea of the 'burden of proof' is applicable here. It's your contention and claim, it is up to you to back it up.
 
2013-03-25 01:13:53 AM  

Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?


I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.

Baryogenesis: You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.


Of course you call it brilliant, I took it directly from your playbook.

Baryogenesis: You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.


There's no "figuring out" needed.  I've paraphrased the problems with averages(when used for specific purposes) numerous times and included all sorts of links.

Also, All this started because you asked me why I don't buy X.  I stated my reasons(as noted), and you now question my reasons, etc etc.

Why do you believe the world will end? Facetious, yes, I know, but state all the plethora of data and methodology and correlation/causation that back up your stand point.

What's that?  You don't want to, because cumulatively, you already have?  Gee, go figure.  I ask a question and you link to Berkeley's home page....Can't handle your own medicine?

You clearly and consistently don't abide by your own words of what "needs" to be done, why should I?  Why the double standard?

Yes, it's very clear you have an excellent grasp on all the data and scientific principles ever, are fair, honest, and respectable.  Why, however did I ever have any doubt!?!
/sarcasm
 
2013-03-25 01:38:22 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.


Highly doubtful given that you most likely do not have access to the vast majority of scientific information. You may be trying to dodge the question.


omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.

Of course you call it brilliant, I took it directly from your playbook.


'No U' isn't as strong of a response as you may think.


omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.

There's no "figuring out" needed.  I've paraphrased the problems with averages(when used for specific purposes) numerous times and included all sorts of links.


Unfortunately those "specific purposes" don't necessarily include climate science. The problem is that you've stated your reasons, but you're refusing to actually link it to the science surrounding climate change. I posted this earlier, and I believe it's still apt in this context:

people.virginia.edu:

omeganuepsilon: Why do you believe the world will end? Facetious, yes, I know, but state all the plethora of data and methodology and correlation/causation that back up your stand point.

What's that?  You don't want to, because cumulatively, you already have?  Gee, go figure.  I ask a question and you link to Berkeley's home page....Can't handle your own medicine?

You clearly and consistently don't abide by your own words of what "needs" to be done, why should I?  Why the double standard?

Yes, it's very clear you have an excellent grasp on all the data and scientific principles ever, are fair, honest, and respectable.  Why, however did I ever have any doubt!?!
/sarcasm


You're flailing about here. The unfortunate thing is that if you would put a fraction of the effort you're expending in trying to avoid clearly stating a line of reasoning into actually educating yourself, you would be much better off.
 
2013-03-25 01:50:56 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.


I "seem" to because you're reading with one eye tied behind your back.

You even acknowledged the concept above, but then turned around with this gem...

Damnhippyfreak: The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

So all that work with collecting temps and heavily processing them is, irrelevant?  Not evidence?  Baryo would like a word with you on that.

Indeed, so would IPCC, NOAA, Berkeley and whatever others.

Without a "rate" of warming, there's little to correlate with the other principles involved, and your whole dire future scenario falls apart.  That is a major support leg you're trying to make non-existant there.(here's where I expect you to kick the backpedaling into high gear "not the graphs themselves but the numbers!" or some such nonsense.

Are you sure you're not playing double agent?  I mean, you already gave "your" side a bad image, but a lot of zealots end up doing that gag as a matter of course, baryo, for example. I mean, your name even fits the stereotype..

But to totally write off a major chain of evidence in such a fashion...

Just, Wow!

Anyhow, 'night creeps.
 
2013-03-25 01:51:25 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.


Lol.  ALL OF IT!  Riiiight.

What is your standard?  What threshold needs to overcome?  What does "proof" mean to you?

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You don't understand it, so it's wrong.  Brilliant stuff.

Of course you call it brilliant, I took it directly from your playbook.


Nice of you to freely admit that you don't understand the statistics you're attempting to criticize.

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: You're the one who needs to defend these statements.  I don't have to figure out what you mean or what papers you're talking about.

There's no "figuring out" needed.  I've paraphrased the problems with averages(when used for specific purposes) numerous times and included all sorts of links.


Oh yes, you've told me that averages can be misused, but you haven't explained if that's actually happening among climate scientists.  Here, I'll quote damnhippyfreak:

Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.


Again, omega, you need to move from "averages can be used to mislead" to "climate scientists have misled with bad statistics like in papers X, Y, Z".  You still haven't made a specific objection to climate science in particular.

omeganuepsilon: Also, All this started because you asked me why I don't buy X.  I stated my reasons(as noted), and you now question my reasons, etc etc.


No, you've stated a single abstract reason, but failed to show how it is impacting climate science specifically.

omeganuepsilon: Why do you believe the world will end? Facetious, yes, I know, but state all the plethora of data and methodology and correlation/causation that back up your stand point.


I don't think the world will end.  Perhaps you'd like to ask a different question?  I'd be happy to support my position which is something you are continually unable to do.

omeganuepsilon: I ask a question and you link to Berkeley's home page....Can't handle your own medicine?


Ooh, except I linked to a climate group.  You're linking to let me google that for you.  I understand that you don't like averages.  I'm asking how that specifically impacts climate science.  Berkeley Earth explained their temperature averaging technique, I figured you'd be more likely to read that than something from NASA, NOAA or HadCRUT.  Their results are in great agreement with the aforementioned NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT.  Would you care to point out the flaws in their methodology?  What, exactly, is the averaging problem you're harping about?
 
2013-03-25 01:55:05 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: You're flailing about here


Only because you're so thick I can't get the concept across(doesn't help that you refuse to read the methodology reports and see the blatant similarities of troubled employment of averages).  I've already stated I'm not a teacher, but now I know the unique challenges of a special ed teacher.
 
2013-03-25 02:05:06 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.

Highly doubtful given that you most likely do not have access to the vast majority of scientific information. You may be trying to dodge the question.


The bottom line:

models.weatherbell.com

/yes, I know it's just month to date
//how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?
 
2013-03-25 02:14:50 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You're flailing about here

Only because you're so thick I can't get the concept across(doesn't help that you refuse to read the methodology reports and see the blatant similarities of troubled employment of averages).  I've already stated I'm not a teacher, but now I know the unique challenges of a special ed teacher.


I've read through a few papers (I'm not going to arrogantly lie and tell you I've seen ALL THE EVIDENCE) and I don't see a problem.  You're the one telling us it's a problem that invalidates everything built upon it ( 

omeganuepsilon: As I noted above, when a fundamental portion of evidence is dubious, that taints the whole body of any part it is involved in.  Any conclusion drawn from such evidence will inherently have the same flaw in it's foundation.

) so it's you who need to show the error.

So, what is the problem?  It should be easy to point out, right?  You've read ALL THE EVIDENCE.  C'mon, point out the error(s).  Telling me to "study it out" isn't an argument.  It's your position so it's your job to provide the support for it.

Baryogenesis: Now, just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But if we're going to play this game of yours then you'll have to list your criteria for accepting those 4 main points (it's getting warmer, it's human caused, the rate of warming and the consequences of warming over +2C).  What's your threshold for 'proof'? If it's substantially different than the threshold used in the scientific community please explain why you are justified using a higher threshold.  What evidence do you need to see?  Be specific.  Example: "I don't think there is a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and a rise in temperature."  These are entirely reasonable questions to ask a self proclaimed skeptic.  I will take your inability or refusal to answer with specifics or the use of red herrings or insults as an admission that you're not actually a skeptic.


Hey, are you ever going to answer my questions?
 
2013-03-25 02:36:00 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.

I "seem" to because you're reading with one eye tied behind your back.

 That or you're not actually making the case for it. Again, you're trying to apply a general principle, with caveats that it might be occurring to a specific field. One can state that all sorts of things have the "distinct possibility" of occurring - that's a poor substitute for showing that it actually occurs. Simply put, that averages can be misused does not mean they are being misused in this case.

omeganuepsilon: You even acknowledged the concept above, but then turned around with this gem...

Damnhippyfreak: The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

So all that work with collecting temps and heavily processing them is, irrelevant?  Not evidence?  Baryo would like a word with you on that.

Indeed, so would IPCC, NOAA, Berkeley and whatever others.


Swing and a miss. The idea is that the the graphs that I mention that focus on a global average are generally illustrative tools. The actual attribution of anthropogenic climate change deals with the understanding of the underlying processes and mechanism at different scales. It's the sort of information that is folded into a global average. That an overview in terms of a global average exists does not mean that the underlying processes and spatial variation that compose said average aren't looked at. A good analogy is that you're assuming a book cover represents all that there is in the book.

omeganuepsilon: Without a "rate" of warming, there's little to correlate with the other principles involved, and your whole dire future scenario falls apart.  That is a major support leg you're trying to make non-existant there.(here's where I expect you to kick the backpedaling into high gear "not the graphs themselves but the numbers!" or some such nonsense.

Are you sure you're not playing double agent?  I mean, you already gave "your" side a bad image, but a lot of zealots end up doing that gag as a matter of course, baryo, for example. I mean, your name even fits the stereotype..

But to totally write off a major chain of evidence in such a fashion...

Just, Wow!

Anyhow, 'night creeps.

This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I suggest that your knowledge of this topic is very superficial at best. The fact of the matter is that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation.
 
2013-03-25 02:37:15 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You're flailing about here

Only because you're so thick I can't get the concept across(doesn't help that you refuse to read the methodology reports and see the blatant similarities of troubled employment of averages).  I've already stated I'm not a teacher, but now I know the unique challenges of a special ed teacher.


Again, you're flailing about instead of actually presenting evidence. You're continuing to prove Baryogenesis right:

Baryogenesis: You'll never give specific answers to the questions in that paragraph because you're an intellectual coward.

 
2013-03-25 02:39:03 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: What evidence do you need to see?

I have seen all the evidence.  It is not proof.

Highly doubtful given that you most likely do not have access to the vast majority of scientific information. You may be trying to dodge the question.

The bottom line:

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

/yes, I know it's just month to date
//how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?


It is hotter. However, you won't be able to see that very easily if you choose to show only a small period of time given the high amount of variability. Yet again:

www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-03-25 02:39:10 AM  

DesertDemonWY: how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?


Funnily enough, I was just reading about that particular point.   Observed warming is pretty well in line with expected warming.
 
2013-03-25 02:42:41 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: [formatting fail]


Let me repost that with better formatting:


omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating can and is.That averages, and statistics in general can be misused or have the distinct possibility of being misused does not mean that they are being misused in climate science.

I "seem" to because you're reading with one eye tied behind your back.

 That or you're not actually making the case for it. Again, you're trying to apply a general principle, with caveats that it might be occurring to a specific field. One can state that all sorts of things have the "distinct possibility" of occurring - that's a poor substitute for showing that it actually occurs. Simply put, that averages can be misused does not mean they are being misused in this case.

omeganuepsilon: You even acknowledged the concept above, but then turned around with this gem...

Damnhippyfreak: The one connection I can guess at is that the idea is that you may be thinking about graphs that portray global averages of temperature that are used as an illustrative tool in regards to global warming. In that case be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on such graphs.

So all that work with collecting temps and heavily processing them is, irrelevant?  Not evidence?  Baryo would like a word with you on that.

Indeed, so would IPCC, NOAA, Berkeley and whatever others.


Swing and a miss. The idea is that the the graphs that I mention that focus on a global average are generally illustrative tools. The actual attribution of anthropogenic climate change deals with the understanding of the underlying processes and mechanism at different scales. It's the sort of information that is folded into a global average. That an overview in terms of a global average exists does not mean that the underlying processes and spatial variation that compose said average aren't looked at. A good analogy is that you're assuming a book cover represents all that there is in the book.

omeganuepsilon: Without a "rate" of warming, there's little to correlate with the other principles involved, and your whole dire future scenario falls apart.  That is a major support leg you're trying to make non-existant there.(here's where I expect you to kick the backpedaling into high gear "not the graphs themselves but the numbers!" or some such nonsense.

Are you sure you're not playing double agent?  I mean, you already gave "your" side a bad image, but a lot of zealots end up doing that gag as a matter of course, baryo, for example. I mean, your name even fits the stereotype..

But to totally write off a major chain of evidence in such a fashion...

Just, Wow!

Anyhow, 'night creeps.

This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I suggest that your knowledge of this topic is very superficial at best. The fact of the matter is that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation.
 
2013-03-25 02:43:54 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Damnhippyfreak: [formatting fail]

Let me repost that with better formatting:


[more formatting fail]

Sorry about that. The editor seems to be erasing paragraph tags on me. Hopefully it will be readable enough as is.
 
2013-03-25 02:57:28 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: It is hotter


Baryogenesis: DesertDemonWY: how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?

Funnily enough, I was just reading about that particular point.   Observed warming is pretty well in line with expected warming.


.064°C GLOBAL ANOMALY = hotter, as expected

/keep farkin that chicken
 
2013-03-25 03:10:18 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: It is hotter

Baryogenesis: DesertDemonWY: how long has global warming been going on, shouldn't it be hotter by now?

Funnily enough, I was just reading about that particular point.   Observed warming is pretty well in line with expected warming.

.064°C GLOBAL ANOMALY = hotter, as expected

/keep farkin that chicken


people.virginia.edu
If you use only 24 days, you do run the risk of an misleading unrepresentative sample, again, given the high amount of variability present.
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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