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.

(Some Guy)   Global warming pause "may stubbornly remain until 2020 or 2025″. Darn those skeptics, doing unscientific things such as quoting IPCC scientists   (notrickszone.com) divider line 372
    More: Followup, global warming, IPCC, scientists, skeptics, science magazine, climate policy, climate sensitivity, Old News  
•       •       •

1700 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Sep 2013 at 4:04 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-23 02:31:33 AM

KiltedBastich: You're getting slapped around on the facts in this thread, as usual, and you're so incompetent and stupid you can't even understand the arguments that are being used to destroy your idiotic positions


My position is that there has been no warming since 1998. Where exactly did that get destroyed again? Did someone show warming since 1998, and I missed it? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't know what you are talking about.

But please, feel free to continue to name-call in substitute for actual thought.
 
2013-09-23 02:47:33 AM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: The thing is that this prediction was based on certain assumptions and did not predict Mount Pinatubo, the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and the growth of some Asian economies.

So what you are saying is that if it weren't for the cooling, it would be warming. What a breakthrough.



Yet another swing and a miss.

It's more that if it weren't for the events that are difficult if not impossible to predict (geopolitical upheaval, economic trends, exact timing of volcanic events), the model highlighted in the IPCC FAR would be pretty accurate.

You have to realize that there's actually two kinds of 'predictions' being made. First is a prediction about forcings - what is put into the model. Second is the results from model itself - what will result given a certain amount of forcing. What I showed is evidence is that the second kind of prediction, the model itself, was pretty good at predicting. However, the model is only as good as what you put into it.

You have to remember that anthropogenic climate change was never meant to predict, say, when the Soviet bloc and its industrial base would collapse. If you're expecting it to do so, you're proving right my original statement that started this line of discussion:

Damnhippyfreak: Nebulous to you, perhaps. Don't make the mistake of thinking your lack of understanding is somehow universal or is an accurate representation of the scientifiic field.

 
2013-09-23 02:50:33 AM

Damnhippyfreak: It's more that if it weren't for the events that are difficult if not impossible to predict (geopolitical upheaval, economic trends, exact timing of volcanic events), the model highlighted in the IPCC FAR would be pretty accurate.


I see...the models would be good if only things were completely different. Thanks for the clarification.
 
2013-09-23 02:55:10 AM

SevenizGud: KiltedBastich: You're getting slapped around on the facts in this thread, as usual, and you're so incompetent and stupid you can't even understand the arguments that are being used to destroy your idiotic positions

My position is that there has been no warming since 1998. Where exactly did that get destroyed again? Did someone show warming since 1998, and I missed it? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't know what you are talking about.

But please, feel free to continue to name-call in substitute for actual thought.



Nope, we've destroyed it repeatedly and you've simply ignored it.

But if you want someone to show you warming since 1998, here you go:

www.woodfortrees.org

And, just like you've done here with your inability to even articulate your position (7.5 hours, and still waiting, BTW), you'll probably run and hide from this information as well.

Coward.
 
2013-09-23 02:57:38 AM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: It's more that if it weren't for the events that are difficult if not impossible to predict (geopolitical upheaval, economic trends, exact timing of volcanic events), the model highlighted in the IPCC FAR would be pretty accurate.

I see...the models would be good if only things were completely different. Thanks for the clarification.



Yet swing and a miss. The models are fine. The assumptions behind what gets put into them sometimes aren't.

Again, if you're expecting a climate model to accurately predict the fall of the Soviet Union, you're demonstrating your own ignorance more than anything.
 
2013-09-23 02:58:13 AM

Damnhippyfreak: Yet another swing and a miss.


Whoops. Let me add that in.
 
2013-09-23 03:05:30 AM

SevenizGud: My position is that there has been no warming since 1998. Where exactly did that get destroyed again? Did someone show warming since 1998, and I missed it? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't know what you are talking about.

But please, feel free to continue to name-call in substitute for actual thought.


The meaninglessness of your statement has been explained to you many times, in this thread and elsewhere. The resources to correct your willful ignorance are everywhere, and yet you cling to your stupidity. Thus, you are either too partisan to acknowledge the complex truth that destroys your simplistic lies, or else too stupid to understand it. Either way, you're not worthy of any kind of meaningful response because you are not and never have been debating in good faith. Liars like you deserve nothing more than scorn.

It does not matter how you dress it up, what big words that you attempt to use. You are an intellectual midget trying and failing to dress up a mockery of rhetoric in the trappings of science. The only reason you deserve any response at all is to prevent someone who is unfamiliar with your venal mendacity from falling victim to your empty lies, and there are precious few of those posting on Fark.

So yes, I open mock and deride you. You have earned nothing more with your pathetic trolling. Your only worth is as a source of amusement for the rest of us, and as an example of just how badly partisanship can ruin a person's capacity to reason.
 
2013-09-23 03:13:54 AM
I've never seen a golfing anecdote come up in an AGW thread.

Shoot, I guess I'm convinced now.
 
2013-09-23 03:14:05 AM

KiltedBastich: SevenizGud: FloydA: OK, you've officially become completely boring. Bye.

Wow, was that ever entertaining. I laughed, and then cried, and then laughed again.

But thanks for taking the time to type that out, because I am sure someone gives a shiat what you think.

Far more people than those who care what a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect such as yourself think.

You're getting slapped around on the facts in this thread, as usual, and you're so incompetent and stupid you can't even understand the arguments that are being used to destroy your idiotic positions. As usual, I am enjoying the derisive laughter at your expense. You don't even understand why you're wrong. It would be pitiable if your venal trolling hadn't made you so worthy of scorn.

So to paraphrase Kittypie070 in a recent thread, continue to dance for us, monkey.



We've got him so thoroughly dominated that he's afraid to tell us what he's really been trying to argue lest we debunk that as well. We've made him so scared that he won't even tell us his real position.

His arguments have been so firmly refuted that his only recourse is to ignore much of my posts and instead put up straw-men of his own fabrication in their place - I'm beating him so badly that he has to argue with himself.

Let's see if he chooses to continue to dance like a monkey or to start to argue like a rational being.
 
2013-09-23 04:23:11 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay:


Farking Canuck: The denier crowd is really off its game today. I think they're trying very hard to get that "IPCC scientists are having crisis meetings because global warming disappeared" lie from the Daily Mail's monthly hatchet-piece to stick in the popular media.  It's just denier blogs linking to other denier blogs linking to that same Daily Mail article.  Just a pathetic attempt to grasp at "some could say that it could be said that ..."

Ha ha!   Look at the science deniers scurry around.   Just bloggers, eh?   Well, that's what you get from only listening to the echo chamber -- ignorant.   So, let's take a looks at some of the "denier blogs:"

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

"highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system", such that the lack of warming "is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists."  - Wall Street Journal

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years - Nature Magazine - Published online, 28 August 2013
(Link doesn't work. Address:  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9  /full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data from the RSS satellites since November 1996 shows there has been no global warming at all for 202 months (16 years 10 months).  - RSS raw data, via WUWT.

 
2013-09-23 04:27:01 AM

Farking Canuck:

LOL. The guy that insists that all temperature trends must start at a single outlier temperature is going to lecture us on science.
Yeah, imagine the nerve of that guy, always starting at  A.D. 1880 for all his charts...  oh, wait...
 
2013-09-23 04:40:21 AM

Farking Canuck:

The global average temperature for 1998 is considered an outlier because it was an extremely warm year ... well above the average for the surrounding years and well above any rolling averages. In fact it is so high that dishonest people insist on using this as a starting point for temperature trends to make it appear that the temperature has been dropping even though the past decade was the hottest on record.

So farking what?  The only reliable global temperature data, satellite data, show that starting in November of 1996, until August of 2013, the planet has cooled -- but by so small an amount it is nearly indistinguishable from remaining constant.  That INCLUDES the outlier of 1998, in case you have trouble with that.

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

So, you're lying about the honesty of other people. Or, if you want to plead utter ignorance of the facts, do so. I guarantee a fair hearing.
 
2013-09-23 04:57:54 AM

From The Woods:

How can you look at a picture of the Earth, look at that thin bubble of air covering the surface, and say there's no way we can be having an impact on the chemistry inside of it?
You can't.  So what?  If one looks to science, however, one will find that the very specific issue of how much humanity's actions have raised the temperature has an upper bound of approximately 0.3 K, with the likely amount being between 0.20 K and 0.25 K.

The idea that the choice is between "we're destroying the planet" and "we have no effect at all" is a false dichotomy, and reasonably stupid, besides.  One of the worst problems caused by the massive hoax of CACC (or whatever dumb-ass name is used now) is that the vast majority of people interested in keeping the environment in good condition have been fooled into ignoring everything humans are doing EXCEPT for the release of carbon dioxide.  That's ironic, because releasing more carbon dioxide is about the only thing we are doing (other than cleaning up our previous messes, which doesn't count as improvement) to actually improve conditions on Earth.

So, greenies, STFU about harmless, helpful carbon dioxide, and start checking out mercury, (CFLs, you know) antibiotics, and that giant freaking plume of highly radioactive water streaming away from Japan as we speak, as a few examples.  Whatever you can do to improve THOSE situations would be greatly appreciated.  You're wasting your time -- and helping out the oil companies, besides -- by being diverted into mindless panic over carbon dioxide.
 
2013-09-23 05:32:23 AM

GeneralJim: From The Woods: How can you look at a picture of the Earth, look at that thin bubble of air covering the surface, and say there's no way we can be having an impact on the chemistry inside of it?You can't.  So what?  If one looks to science, however, one will find that the very specific issue of how much humanity's actions have raised the temperature has an upper bound of approximately 0.3 K, with the likely amount being between 0.20 K and 0.25 K.

The idea that the choice is between "we're destroying the planet" and "we have no effect at all" is a false dichotomy, and reasonably stupid, besides.  One of the worst problems caused by the massive hoax of CACC (or whatever dumb-ass name is used now) is that the vast majority of people interested in keeping the environment in good condition have been fooled into ignoring everything humans are doing EXCEPT for the release of carbon dioxide.  That's ironic, because releasing more carbon dioxide is about the only thing we are doing (other than cleaning up our previous messes, which doesn't count as improvement) to actually improve conditions on Earth.

So, greenies, STFU about harmless, helpful carbon dioxide, and start checking out mercury, (CFLs, you know) antibiotics, and that giant freaking plume of highly radioactive water streaming away from Japan as we speak, as a few examples.  Whatever you can do to improve THOSE situations would be greatly appreciated.  You're wasting your time -- and helping out the oil companies, besides -- by being diverted into mindless panic over carbon dioxide.


Honestly, do you ever get tired of asserting knowledge on something you have the most embarrassing lack of anything resembling understanding of?
 
2013-09-23 06:27:51 AM

I love watching those who have been hurling the insult "denier" around for years desperately denying the evidence science is providing.

You got taken in, and that would not have happened had you known the first thing about science.

"The science is settled" was your first clue -- and you hopped on that in a heartbeat.  Oh, yes, we know EVERYTHING about a mathematically chaotic system.

The next major clue you missed was "The dog ate my data," or however that ended up being phrased.  That excuse doesn't even work in high school.

With no repeatable data, you have only altered data, (trust us) and you leave the realm of science -- not just GOOD science, but science.

Related to the data loss was the air of secrecy about science.  Other than cutting edge weapons research, scientists are open people.  Science only works that way.

You also missed Climategate -- verified e-mails released, showing intent to pervert peer-review, and promises to "lose" the data before letting skeptics see it.  You made excuses.

You missed several times that James Hansen was caught altering data without publishing a rationale.

I still haven't gotten any of you to explain why the period of 1900-1970 has vastly different NASA temperature graphs in 1975 and 2013.

And for some reason you all believe that the IPCC reports are peer-reviewed.   They are not -- at least not in the standard way.
    For example, when the scientists got done with the 2000 report, one important phrase in it read: "There has been a discernible human influence on global climate."
    The U.N. bureaucrats printed it as: "Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
    There are also over 1500 examples of "gray literature" inserted into the AR4, essentially all of it from environmental activist propaganda.

And you have played this like a team sport, or your religion, and actively avoided -- and denigrated -- any source of information not reguritating your beliefs.

All in all, you have no one to blame but yourselves for being active participants in the largest (and most expensive) scientific scam in history. Cheers!

 
2013-09-23 06:28:58 AM
Atillathepun:
Honestly, do you ever get tired of asserting knowledge on something you have the most embarrassing lack of anything resembling understanding of?

Atilla: please provide a brief summary of your qualifications in the area of meteorology, biology, atmospheric physics or any other area that pertains to the climate debate.

Or get lost.
 
2013-09-23 06:32:09 AM

Atillathepun:

Honestly, do you ever get tired of asserting knowledge on something you have the most embarrassing lack of anything resembling understanding of?
Oh, look, another ignoramus, hurling an insult, and considering it a scientific argument.   Okay, Einstein, rather than just flapping your pie hole, how about you point out something I've written, and explain why you think it's wrong.  Otherwise,  you're just a shrieking chimp.
 
2013-09-23 06:43:51 AM

GeneralJim: I love watching those who have been hurling the insult "denier" around for years desperately denying the evidence science is providing.You got taken in, and that would not have happened had you known the first thing about science."The science is settled" was your first clue -- and you hopped on that in a heartbeat.  Oh, yes, we know EVERYTHING about a mathematically chaotic system.The next major clue you missed was "The dog ate my data," or however that ended up being phrased.  That excuse doesn't even work in high school.With no repeatable data, you have only altered data, (trust us) and you leave the realm of science -- not just GOOD science, but science.Related to the data loss was the air of secrecy about science.  Other than cutting edge weapons research, scientists are open people.  Science only works that way.You also missed Climategate -- verified e-mails released, showing intent to pervert peer-review, and promises to "lose" the data before letting skeptics see it.  You made excuses.You missed several times that James Hansen was caught altering data without publishing a rationale.I still haven't gotten any of you to explain why the period of 1900-1970 has vastly different NASA temperature graphs in 1975 and 2013.And for some reason you all believe that the IPCC reports are peer-reviewed.   They are not -- at least not in the standard way.
    For example, when the scientists got done with the 2000 report, one important phrase in it read: "There has been a discernible human influence on global climate."
    The U.N. bureaucrats printed it as: "Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
    There are also over 1500 examples of "gray literature" inserted into the AR4, essentially all of it from environmental activist propaganda.

And you have played this like a team sport, or your religion, and actively avoided -- and denigrated -- any source of information not reguritating ...


Jim is bang on the money here.

Just to expand a bit... the 97% consensus came from one of a number of metastudies offering similar results and motivating the phrase "overwhelming consensus". But I, and probably Jim, would be counted as part of that 97% were we questioned. That is because the "trick" with these studies is to pass off a general acceptance of basic facts as approval for the CAGW religion.

The reality is that while real science goes on, and always has done, in areas like meteorology, physics, oceanography etc, none of this directly supports CAGW. The climatologists, of whom there are few (and very few who have not exposed themselves as eco activists and/or evidence-fiddlers) just cite papers in these disciplines in order to leech credibility off them by claiming support for CAGW when there is none. Indeed, there is no discovery or measurement that anyone can make about the world without some frothing lunatic citing it as evidence of CAGW.

And "peer review" is a flaky process in the best of disciplines - just ask any real scientist. It is mostly just for journals to filter their articles and ensure consistency (the real essence of science is in empiricism, experimental validation and falsifiability as well as a series of iconoclastic individuals brave enough to keep challenging the "consensus"). Peer review in climatology is done by other climatologists, and since all climatoologists are united by a clut-like desire to push CAGW, the most alarmist articles just get rubber-stamped.

So for these three reasons (and others) the certainty with which internet alarmists argue is founded on nothing but tricks and hot air. The climatology emperor is - how do you Americans put it - butt naked.
 
2013-09-23 07:45:12 AM

Damnhippyfreak: We've got him so thoroughly dominated that he's afraid to tell us what he's really been trying to argue


So you admit that your purpose on here is to, in your own words, "thoroughly dominate" those with whom you do not agree. You seem to be some sort of intellectual "thug," conspiring to go around in some sort of debating "gang". You certainly aren't interested in getting to the truth of anything.

Also, for the sake of any readers who may not be aware, one of Dhf's preferred methods of "dominating" those who he regards as guilty of wrong-think, is to lie about the contents of citations. Further details here: http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988 317
 
2013-09-23 08:08:59 AM

Mad_Radhu: Deniers DO realize that climate is a complex non-linear system, right? It actually tries really hard to stay in its current configuration thanks to a large number of feedback loops


Strange I have been called a denier for saying exactly this...

(I get to say that a lot lately)
 
2013-09-23 08:26:21 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: We've got him so thoroughly dominated that he's afraid to tell us what he's really been trying to argue

So you admit that your purpose on here is to, in your own words, "thoroughly dominate" those with whom you do not agree. You seem to be some sort of intellectual "thug," conspiring to go around in some sort of debating "gang". You certainly aren't interested in getting to the truth of anything.

Also, for the sake of any readers who may not be aware, one of Dhf's preferred methods of "dominating" those who he regards as guilty of wrong-think, is to lie about the contents of citations. Further details here: http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988 317


Your linked post (and the article) seem pertinent here in this thread,

"Whatever the reason for the ongoing 'warm bias' in Met Office global temperatures, their afraid to tell us what he's really been trying to argue " instead of letting them post and countering their argument with the settled science, observations and facts which is a lot of the problem I have with this issue. It screams that the topic is driven by an agenda.
 
2013-09-23 08:29:09 AM
"Whatever the reason for the ongoing 'warm bias' in Met Office global temperatures, their forecast for the first half of this decade, published in early 2010, that half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record (with an anomaly of 0.52C set in 1998) is already looking in doubt."

was the quote from my post which was lost due to a malformed URL
 
2013-09-23 08:42:19 AM

dready zim: "Whatever the reason for the ongoing 'warm bias' in Met Office global temperatures, their forecast for the first half of this decade, published in early 2010, that half the years between 2010 and 2015 would be hotter than the hottest year on record (with an anomaly of 0.52C set in 1998) is already looking in doubt."

was the quote from my post which was lost due to a malformed URL


Sorry about that. You are right though - the conclusions are decided first, then results are chosen to support the conclusion, then the methodology, and finally the data. Which is why they SHOUT SO LOUDLY!! about their conclusions, then obfuscate, fiddle and break FOI laws to keep the data quiet.
 
2013-09-23 08:49:23 AM

GeneralJim: Ha ha! Look at the science deniers scurry around. Just bloggers, eh? Well, that's what you get from only listening to the echo chamber -- ignorant. So, let's take a looks at some of the "denier blogs:"

[Link to Newspaper]

[Link to Newspaper]

  [Link to Newspaper]  [Link to Newspaper]

[Link to Possible real paper hidden behind a paywall]

 
[Link to Blog] 


Yeah ... you showed us!!
 
2013-09-23 08:52:07 AM
You know, in 1988 Hansen said "If our model is approximately correct, such situations (droughts) may be more common in the next 10-15 years than they were in the period 1950-1980"

So if their models (which we have based all the hype on) predicted more droughts (enough to invalidate using data from 1950-1980 to predict them) between 1988 and 2003 otherwise they are stated to be not even approximately correct according to Hansen...

Did that happen?

Or (as always happens) did they use sufficiently vague language so as to be able to clam all situations match their predictions?
 
2013-09-23 08:53:03 AM

Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: Ha ha! Look at the science deniers scurry around. Just bloggers, eh? Well, that's what you get from only listening to the echo chamber -- ignorant. So, let's take a looks at some of the "denier blogs:"

[Link to Newspaper]

[Link to Newspaper]  [Link to Newspaper]  [Link to Newspaper]

[Link to Possible real paper hidden behind a paywall]
 
[Link to Blog] 


Yeah ... you showed us!!


Not quite sure what your argument is here... any chance of some elucidation?
 
2013-09-23 09:12:06 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Not quite sure what your argument is here... any chance of some elucidation?


He's trying to suggest that quoting news reporter's opinions of science is different (and somehow better) than quoting blogers' opinions of science. In the end, all the articles he quotes are the same: opinions based either on zero science or very distorted science.
 
2013-09-23 09:17:19 AM

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Not quite sure what your argument is here... any chance of some elucidation?

He's trying to suggest that quoting news reporter's opinions of science is different (and somehow better) than quoting blogers' opinions of science. In the end, all the articles he quotes are the same: opinions based either on zero science or very distorted science.


Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on. Are you claiming that reporters never do their job wheras scientists always do? Or are you claiming something different?
 
2013-09-23 09:57:05 AM
img.fark.net
 
2013-09-23 10:03:14 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on.


So maybe we could just link to professional sources, instead of giving a crap what random bloggers and op-eds say.  Their opinion isn't worth crap.

I guess the problem is that you've figured out what the primary sources have been telling you, and it disagrees with your politically-motivated preconceptions.

From a 2013 paper published in Environmental Research Letters: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus." (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article )

ej.iop.orgFigure 3. Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus.
 
2013-09-23 10:17:57 AM

WelldeadLink: [img.fark.net image 501x673]


A few points about these graphs.

1. It is ridiculous for alarmists to try to define how scptics "see "global warming. It's playground stuff. If you want to know what a sceptic might really think, just ask :)

2. You see how the IPCC graph is stretched in the vertical axis to make the warming seem really sharp. In fact it's only a fraction of a degree! In recent history we have seen both higher temperatures and a faster rate of rise. And neither had to do with human beings.

3. The smoothing process used by IPCC introduces delay, and hence the last 10 years or so of year-on-year are not represented. Hiding the decline! As always, the sceptics are using the up-to-date data

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the debate still rages on about how that 1978-1998 rise was actually arrived at anyway. Between urban heat island effect, selective analysis and downright data fiddling, any actual rise is likely to be much smaller than shown.

OK one last thing. In order to be catastrophic in nature, the predictions for a rise need to be exponential, i.e. getting faster and faster. By 2013, temps should be way up acording to them. Thus, the discrepancy they are trying to hide is more like 1 degree - bigger than the total warming seen!

You may ask, "why so many things wrong with that graph?". You may not beleive that they could be cheating on so many different ways just to produce one graph. But that's the trick. Teller (out of Penn and Teller) did a fascinating lecture once where he showed how to produce coins out of nowhere. You could not guess "the" trick because therre was not one trick behind it but many different tricks all used one after the other to create the required effect. I have only listed some of the tricks that IPCC use to create scary graphs. In reality, there are many more. You have to ask yourself, are these people determined enough to keep thinking up trick after trick in order to convince you. But when you dare to question their claims, they will show you just how determined they are. And then you will see that they are more than willing, for they are addicted to their opinions.
 
2013-09-23 10:20:23 AM

chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on.

So maybe we could just link to professional sources, instead of giving a crap what random bloggers and op-eds say.  Their opinion isn't worth crap.

I guess the problem is that you've figured out what the primary sources have been telling you, and it disagrees with your politically-motivated preconceptions.

From a 2013 paper published in Environmental Research Letters: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus." (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article )

[ej.iop.org image 409x344]Figure 3. Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus.


I explain a few comments ago that I am part of that consensus. The trick is that the questions actually asked get a "yes" from virtually everybody including most sceptics. Did you even check to see what those questions were? Of course not.
 
2013-09-23 10:21:37 AM

THE GREAT NAME: chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on.

So maybe we could just link to professional sources, instead of giving a crap what random bloggers and op-eds say.  Their opinion isn't worth crap.

I guess the problem is that you've figured out what the primary sources have been telling you, and it disagrees with your politically-motivated preconceptions.

From a 2013 paper published in Environmental Research Letters: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus." (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article )

[ej.iop.org image 409x344]Figure 3. Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus.

I explain a few comments ago that I am part of that consensus. The trick is that the questions actually asked get a "yes" from virtually everybody including most sceptics. Did you even check to see what those questions were? Of course not.


Oh, and the self-ratings are opt-in. I.e. absolutely worthless.
 
2013-09-23 10:22:26 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on. Are you claiming that reporters never do their job wheras scientists always do? Or are you claiming something different?


Reporters are generally f*cking terrible at their jobs. At least scientists tend not to stay scientists very long if they're terrible at it, because they lose all credibility.

Both are only human and capable of error - but reporters have no incentive to make any attempt to verify what they publish, and in fact often have incentive to create controversy where there is none because controversy sells. If you're looking for someone who's stirring things up just to keep employed, the public media is a much more likely candidate.

If reporters lost credibility for bad reporting the same way scientists lost credibility for bad science, I think we'd be living in a much happier, better informed world.
=Smidge=
 
2013-09-23 10:28:50 AM

Smidge204: THE GREAT NAME: Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on. Are you claiming that reporters never do their job wheras scientists always do? Or are you claiming something different?

Reporters are generally f*cking terrible at their jobs. At least scientists tend not to stay scientists very long if they're terrible at it, because they lose all credibility.

Both are only human and capable of error - but reporters have no incentive to make any attempt to verify what they publish, and in fact often have incentive to create controversy where there is none because controversy sells.
=Smidge=


Exciting claims also get achedemic papers published. Sure, peer reveiw should stop it but peer-reveiw is just an editorial process, and journalists have editors too.

You have given no reason why a journalist would choose hyperbole at the risk of long-term damage to their careers, wheras a scientist would not. Are you saying scientists are better people? I might respond that a good scientist is probably a better person than most, but to do so would be a tautology.
 
2013-09-23 10:40:08 AM

THE GREAT NAME: but peer-reveiw is just an editorial process


THE GREAT NAME: And "peer review" is a flaky process in the best of disciplines - just ask any real scientist.


Ideally, you shouldn't be trolling at all, but if you really must waste your own time (and others' time) by making ridiculous, categorically false claims, I would just suggest you stick to showbiz and sports threads. Those topics invoke enough passion that you should still get the attention you very obviously want, while ensuring that any misinformation you end up spreading is relatively harmless in the scheme of things. It'd be a win-win, really.
 
2013-09-23 10:48:34 AM

THE GREAT NAME: You have given no reason why a journalist would choose hyperbole at the risk of long-term damage to their careers, wheras a scientist would not. Are you saying scientists are better people?


When the topic is "What is the scientific evidence telling us?"

Yes.  Absolutely.  Mass media coverage of science is terrible.

THE GREAT NAME: I explain a few comments ago that I am part of that consensus. The trick is that the questions actually asked get a "yes" from virtually everybody including most sceptics. Did you even check to see what those questions were? Of course not.


You're probably thinking of other studies.  The claim I cited ("Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus." (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article )) was done by double-blind analysis of published research.  The cited apper describes the methods used.

The "authors" piece involved a head count of authors involved in those abstracts, since all authors need to reach consensus before submitting a publication.  The implication from the higher number is that more frequently, a "skeptical" paper has one author, whereas mainstream research typically includes 5-10 authors per paper.  That itself is an interesting phenomenon, of course.

If you're curious, they directly asked the authors to self-rate their papers: "Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus."  This is a different line of evidence than independent analysis of the abstracts, but it shows that the reviewers were correctly interpreting the authors' conclusions.

Other professional sources using different methods and reaching the same conclusion of 96%+ consensus:
Bray D 2010 The scientific consensus of climate change revisited Environ. Sci. Policy 13 340-50
Doran P and Zimmerman M 2009 Examining the scientific consensus on climate change EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 90 22-3
Oreskes N 2004 Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change Science 306 1686
Anderegg W R L, Prall J W, Harold J and Schneider S H 2010 Expert credibility in climate change Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 12107-9(http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full )

What sources are you using?
 
2013-09-23 10:55:20 AM

Biological Ali: THE GREAT NAME: but peer-reveiw is just an editorial process

THE GREAT NAME: And "peer review" is a flaky process in the best of disciplines - just ask any real scientist.

Ideally, you shouldn't be trolling at all, but if you really must waste your own time (and others' time) by making ridiculous, categorically false claims, I would just suggest you stick to showbiz and sports threads. Those topics invoke enough passion that you should still get the attention you very obviously want, while ensuring that any misinformation you end up spreading is relatively harmless in the scheme of things. It'd be a win-win, really.


http://www.labnews.co.uk/features/peer-review/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full
http://physicsfocus.org/philip-moriarty-are-flaws-in-peer-review-som eo ne-elses-problem/
There are lots more, just Google...

I will draw your attention to point 4 in the second article in the list. To quote:

Point 4: Scientific dogmatists increasingly play the "peer-review card" to silence scientific dissent. Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, "peer-review" serves as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html#sthas h .vBLVnkAg.dpuf

Is that you, Ali?
 
2013-09-23 10:55:21 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Exciting claims also get achedemic papers published. Sure, peer reveiw should stop it but peer-reveiw is just an editorial process


1) I'm guessing you lack direct experience with "academic" "review" if you consistently mangle both words.  Well, that and you have no idea what is involved.
2) It's not an editorial process.  The bulk of your questions are technical.  You often have to supply more data through the results of additional experiments.  (Actually, I'm not sure if I've ever gotten a non-review paper published without submitting additional data.)  If all it needed was "editorial" work, they'd ask an editor, not three or more Ph.D.-level scientists (who often have poor writing skills, anyway).
 
2013-09-23 11:02:32 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Point 4: Scientific dogmatists increasingly play the "peer-review card" to silence scientific dissent. Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, "peer-review" serves as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html#sthas h .vBLVnkAg.dpuf


Holy crap.

Evolutionnews.org!  A Creationist blog sponsored by the Discovery Institute!  In an article written by an attorney (Casey Luskin) who works for the Discovery Institute!  Co-author of "Discovering Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Design 101"!   And he has a problem with mainstream science!  Shocking!

Do you even know what a primary source is?  Hint: "I done prayed for a vision about climate change until I spaked in tongues!" does not count.

Follow-up question: Do you believe that Jesus rode a dinosaur to tell people about trickle-down economics?
 
2013-09-23 11:07:41 AM

chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: Point 4: Scientific dogmatists increasingly play the "peer-review card" to silence scientific dissent. Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, "peer-review" serves as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p056241.html#sthas h .vBLVnkAg.dpuf

Holy crap.

Evolutionnews.org!  A Creationist blog sponsored by the Discovery Institute!  In an article written by an attorney (Casey Luskin) who works for the Discovery Institute!  Co-author of "Discovering Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Design 101"!   And he has a problem with mainstream science!  Shocking!

Do you even know what a primary source is?  Hint: "I done prayed for a vision about climate change until I spaked in tongues!" does not count.

Follow-up question: Do you believe that Jesus rode a dinosaur to tell people about trickle-down economic


Actually I do not beliive in creationism. But there are plenty of sources for people who question the sanctity of peer reveiw all over the scientific community.

Is it possible that as someone with published articles yourself, you mich have a vested interest in talking up the process? You wouldn't want to undermine your main source of credibility would you? Particularly if your "peers" know your Fark alias?

In fact, I think you should probably ignored when you try to "argue from authority" for a process you depend on for both paycheck and sense of self-worth.
 
2013-09-23 11:07:44 AM

THE GREAT NAME: I will draw your attention


While I appreciate you tipping your hand more obviously by linking to creationist propaganda, I still stand by my earlier suggestion. If you really want to spend your day provoking irritated responses from strangers on the internet by posting things you don't even believe, you're better off just going to the Breaking Bad thread and writing long, detailed arguments about why you think Dexter is a better show.
 
2013-09-23 11:10:25 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on. Are you claiming that reporters never do their job wheras scientists always do? Or are you claiming something different?


I am suggesting that only a moron get's their science from newspapers or bloggers.

If a non-scientific source, like a newspaper or blog, makes you aware of new research and they provide links to the primary research, then it may be worth looking into the papers if you are interested. But to actually trust them to correctly interpret it is historically a bad bet.

Look at all the 1970s global cooling crap that deniers like to post. It is not remotely close to what the science of the day was saying but it was in Time magazine so the anti-science crowd keeps bringing it up.
 
2013-09-23 11:11:32 AM

Biological Ali: THE GREAT NAME: I will draw your attention

While I appreciate you tipping your hand more obviously by linking to creationist


Actually I don't believe that stuff. It's just that there were so many hits when I googled "problems with peer reveiw". Try it yourself and you'll see.

The rest of your comment is based on a (possibly not unreasonable) misconception, so I will not respond except to say that I absolutely do believe that CAGW is 90%+ utter rubbish. If you can't believe that I believe that, then that's some sort-of your problem, not mine. Get out more, maybe?
 
2013-09-23 11:21:20 AM

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Scientists' job is to figure out science. Reporters' job is to pass the info on. Are you claiming that reporters never do their job wheras scientists always do? Or are you claiming something different?

I am suggesting that only a moron get's their science from newspapers or bloggers.

If a non-scientific source, like a newspaper or blog, makes you aware of new research and they provide links to the primary research, then it may be worth looking into the papers if you are interested. But to actually trust them to correctly interpret it is historically a bad bet.

Look at all the 1970s global cooling crap that deniers like to post. It is not remotely close to what the science of the day was saying but it was in Time magazine so the anti-science crowd keeps bringing it up.


And in 20 years time, Farking Canuck will be posting on Fark:

"Look at all the 2000s global warming crap that deniers like to post. It is not remotely close to what the science of the day was saying but it was on the BBC so the anti-science crowd keeps bringing it up. "
 
2013-09-23 11:27:30 AM
Come on, chimp_ninja, answer the question! Do you have a vested interest in talking up peer review or not???

Let's have linkies to some of your papers so we can make up our own mind.
 
2013-09-23 11:27:55 AM

WelldeadLink: [img.fark.net image 501x673]


You keep posting those two graphs together as if their is some parallel between them.

The first is a graph mocking the way deniers refuse to use the entire dataset because it shows the clear increase in temperature over the last 100 years. Instead, they dishonestly choose local high temperatures as the starting points for short trend graphs so they can artificially manufacture zero or negative slopes (see all of SevenIzGud's plots for the last few years).

The second is representing 10 year temperature averages in a strange way (i.e. as 10 year horizontal lines instead of points). A common method to reduce noise from short term fluctuations to try and deduce the overall trend. I am curious if they were plotted this way in the report or if this is a replot of the data to make it look like the parody graph.

Either way they are not similar ... you are not doing yourself any favors by implying that they are.
 
2013-09-23 11:32:21 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Actually I don't believe that stuff. It's just that there were so many hits when I googled "problems with peer reveiw". Try it yourself and you'll see.


That's some fine research.  Googling loaded phrases and pasting in any blog that matches.  (I just Googled "problems with spherical Earth" and got 4.8 million matches.  There goes that theory, I guess.)  Good on Google for dealing with your persistently mangled spelling, though.

You have to pray harder from your heart.  Only then will the Discovery Institute let you be bitten by serpents until you understand that all science is bad, peer review means spell-check, and Kirk Cameron is automatically president.  PAH-RAISE UNTO EVOLUTIONNEWS.ORG, REVEALER OF WHAT DONE BE GAWD'S TRUTH!

So, are you more of a "The Earth is 4,000 years old" or a "The Earth is 5,000 years old" type of guy?
 
2013-09-23 11:36:24 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Come on, chimp_ninja, answer the question! Do you have a vested interest in talking up peer review or not???

Let's have linkies to some of your papers so we can make up our own mind.


I'm a professional scientist.  So yes, I'd prefer that the integrity of my profession is protected by a robust review process on primary studies.  Oooh, controversial.

It's kind of like when you DONE CALL OUT TO THE SPIRITS OF JESUS SO THAT CROCODUCK COMPELS EVOLUTIONNEWS.ORG TO REVEAL THAT THE FACE OF MOSES ON A SLIGHTLY BURNED PRETZEL AGREES WITH THE VOICES THAT COME OUT WHEN YOU DONE SPEAK IN TONGUES AND THE PRIEST GIVES YOU HIS SPECIAL HEALING TOUCH.  Sort of.
 
2013-09-23 11:39:24 AM

chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: Actually I don't believe that stuff. It's just that there were so many hits when I googled "problems with peer reveiw". Try it yourself and you'll see.

That's some fine research.  Googling loaded phrases and pasting in any blog that matches.  (I just Googled "problems with spherical Earth" and got 4.8 million matches.


Earth is approximately an oblate speroid, not a sphere. What's your scientific discipline again?

There goes that theory, I guess.)  Good on Google for dealing with your persistently mangled spelling, though.

You have to pray harder from your heart.  Only then will the Discovery Institute let you be bitten by serpents until you understand that all science is bad, peer review means spell-check, and Kirk Cameron is automatically president.  PAH-RAISE UNTO EVOLUTIONNEWS.ORG, REVEALER OF WHAT DONE BE GAWD'S TRUTH!

So, are you more of a "The Earth is 4,000 years old" or a "The Earth is 5,000 years old" type of guy?


As I mentioned, I'm not into any of that stuff. But thanks for confirming your compulsion to pidgeonhole those who disagree with you. Let's hope that bigotry isn't reflected in your published papers!
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report