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.

(BBC)   Scientists are sharply divided on global warming over whether or not to tell the Syrians the bad news   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, microscopes, Syrians, Arctic sea ice, University of Sussex, IPCC, global warming  
•       •       •

2122 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:08 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-25 10:11:04 AM  
Good, because I have a graph of the temperature in my back yard from yesterday afternoon to 3 am clearly showing that the earth is cooling.
 
2014-03-25 10:15:02 AM  
The earth cooled last night, but the trending indicators sharply reversed just after dawn. It's like a a sequence of hockey sticks or something. You can't explain that.
 
2014-03-25 10:18:17 AM  
So, the working group in charge of identifying risks is saying "this is going to be catastrophic", while the economist in charge of the report's economic analysis says "if we take the right adaptive actions then it might merely be awful".

Thank goodness the BBC made the nature of this disagreement clear with their headline, "Dissent among scientists over key climate impact report".  Imagine how irresponsible it would have been to make it sound like there's fundamental scientific disagreement about the reality of climate change.
 
2014-03-25 10:22:59 AM  
But see, the idiots who are going to come into this thread, they aren't going to side with the "less alarmist" camp, that they think, without examining, agrees with them.  No.  They'll fall into the exact same spectrum of outright denial of science(they'll think these guys agree with them), the "it's not going to cause any serious problems" crowd(they'll think these guys agree with them), and the "so what?" crowd(they think these guys will agree with them)

None of these people will be anywhere near what the legitimate dissenters are actually saying.  But they'll think there's a controversy, and that experts agree with them, by god.
 
2014-03-25 10:30:47 AM  
Prof Richard Tol is an economist at the University of Sussex, who has been the convening lead author of the chapter on economics.
He was involved in drafting the summary but has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.
"The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together," he told BBC News.
"This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity."


It seems from the words of people involved that the first draft said there were issues but that we could cope with them but we would have to act and the second draft is apocalyptic prophesy.

I keep saying that the only way forward is to stop with the hyperbole and to state the issues clearly and by not hyping them up. Some people say `where are these claims of apocalyptic doom and gloom that you say are being said?`. Here they are. It`s the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Don`t try to mitigate, YOU ARE ALL DOOMED!

People simply don`t believe the hype, there`s even a song about it...
 
2014-03-25 10:30:53 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Good, because I have a graph of the temperature in my back yard from yesterday afternoon to 3 am clearly showing that the earth is cooling.


Huh, I have one like that, except:

1. It is on my computer
2. It is for the last 17 years
3. It is from NASA's own data.

Hide the decline it's a hiatus

Don't worry, Chicken Little, that warming is coming back reeeeeeal soon, amiright?
 
2014-03-25 10:31:23 AM  

ikanreed: But see, the idiots who are going to come into this thread, they aren't going to side with the "less alarmist" camp, that they think, without examining, agrees with them.  No.  They'll fall into the exact same spectrum of outright denial of science(they'll think these guys agree with them), the "it's not going to cause any serious problems" crowd(they'll think these guys agree with them), and the "so what?" crowd(they think these guys will agree with them)

None of these people will be anywhere near what the legitimate dissenters are actually saying.  But they'll think there's a controversy, and that experts agree with them, by god.


Strawman much?
 
2014-03-25 10:33:24 AM  

SevenizGud: Shakin_Haitian: Good, because I have a graph of the temperature in my back yard from yesterday afternoon to 3 am clearly showing that the earth is cooling.

Huh, I have one like that, except:

1. It is on my computer
2. It is for the last 17 years
3. It is from NASA's own data.

Hide the decline it's a hiatus

Don't worry, Chicken Little, that warming is coming back reeeeeeal soon, amiright?


To be honest you actually might be. According to the sunspots it`s due in 10 years if there is a lag of 30-40 years between sunspot activity and temperature.

This may not have any relation to reality.
 
2014-03-25 10:37:53 AM  
The assertions that the summary for policymakers is too alarmist has been countered by Dr Arthur Petersen, the chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, who is representing his government in Yokohama.  "Working group I (the physical sciences) doesn't want to sound alarmist. In working group II, they don't want to chance not having spotted a particular risk so they have a bias in the other direction," he said.


And this is the guy who is PRO the new report? Openly admitting bias?

I can see the problem. There should not be bias in something like this. State the issues neutrally.

Cut the hype.
 
2014-03-25 10:44:39 AM  

dready zim: Prof Richard Tol is an economist at the University of Sussex, who has been the convening lead author of the chapter on economics.
He was involved in drafting the summary but has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.
"The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together," he told BBC News.
"This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity."

It seems from the words of people involved that the first draft said there were issues but that we could cope with them but we would have to act and the second draft is apocalyptic prophesy.

I keep saying that the only way forward is to stop with the hyperbole and to state the issues clearly and by not hyping them up. Some people say `where are these claims of apocalyptic doom and gloom that you say are being said?`. Here they are. It`s the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Don`t try to mitigate, YOU ARE ALL DOOMED!

People simply don`t believe the hype, there`s even a song about it...


The title of the report is "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". If the initial draft was as described by Richard Tol it clearly didn't meet the actual remit of what they were supposed to be writing about. Sounds like the latest report does a better job of providing relevant information according to the remit but Richard Tol (Is he "The critics"?) wanted to take things in a different direction - why did he sign up to be a lead author in the first place?

The third report in the trilogy is the one which is supposed to focus more on potential solutions.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:02 AM  
It's absolutely possible for us to mitigate many of the effects, so the guy has a valid point. Not sure why the headline seems to exaggerate the degree of dissent, however.

I mean 2% reduction in crop capacity per decade for 100 years? I think we can overcome that pretty damned easily.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:56 AM  

dready zim: The assertions that the summary for policymakers is too alarmist has been countered by Dr Arthur Petersen, the chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, who is representing his government in Yokohama.  "Working group I (the physical sciences) doesn't want to sound alarmist. In working group II, they don't want to chance not having spotted a particular risk so they have a bias in the other direction," he said.


And this is the guy who is PRO the new report? Openly admitting bias?

I can see the problem. There should not be bias in something like this. State the issues neutrally.

Cut the hype.


They are stating the issues neutrally. "Bias" is being used in a scientific way, not a political way here.

The statement "they have a bias" refers to the fact that they have a bias towards reporting all potential problems. Just like your doctor might have a bias towards identifying all serious health problems you might have. This is a good thing in both cases - you want the people charged with finding problems to try hard to find them.
 
2014-03-25 10:54:54 AM  

LasersHurt: It's absolutely possible for us to mitigate many of the effects, so the guy has a valid point. Not sure why the headline seems to exaggerate the degree of dissent, however.

I mean 2% reduction in crop capacity per decade for 100 years? I think we can overcome that pretty damned easily.


That's why I tend to agree with "dissent guy" from TFA.  Straight-up alarmism (it's irreversible and we're all boned no matter what!) is counter productive, IMO.  If people feel like it's hopeless, they won't see any reason to change their habits and it'll only make the situation worse.  If the message is focused on: "here's how we can avoid some really bad stuff, if we all get our act together and work hard," that'll have a much more beneficial effect.

Give the world something to strive for, and we'll have a decent chance of making a decent future for ourselves.
 
2014-03-25 11:03:22 AM  

SevenizGud: Shakin_Haitian: Good, because I have a graph of the temperature in my back yard from yesterday afternoon to 3 am clearly showing that the earth is cooling.

Huh, I have one like that, except:

1. It is on my computer
2. It is for the last 17 years
3. It is from NASA's own data.

Hide the decline it's a hiatus

Don't worry, Chicken Little, that warming is coming back reeeeeeal soon, amiright?


2014-17 = 1997

Why did you choose 1997 as a starting year?  It's kind of a weird year to start, isn't it?
 
2014-03-25 11:03:55 AM  

ikanreed: But see, the idiots who are going to come into this thread, they aren't going to side with the "less alarmist" camp, that they think, without examining, agrees with them.  No.  They'll fall into the exact same spectrum of outright denial of science(they'll think these guys agree with them), the "it's not going to cause any serious problems" crowd(they'll think these guys agree with them), and the "so what?" crowd(they think these guys will agree with them)

None of these people will be anywhere near what the legitimate dissenters are actually saying.  But they'll think there's a controversy, and that experts agree with them, by god.


You're a big fan of punctuation.
 
2014-03-25 11:07:14 AM  
Stop Plate Tectonics!
 
2014-03-25 11:15:47 AM  

dready zim: ikanreed: But see, the idiots who are going to come into this thread, they aren't going to side with the "less alarmist" camp, that they think, without examining, agrees with them.  No.  They'll fall into the exact same spectrum of outright denial of science(they'll think these guys agree with them), the "it's not going to cause any serious problems" crowd(they'll think these guys agree with them), and the "so what?" crowd(they think these guys will agree with them)

None of these people will be anywhere near what the legitimate dissenters are actually saying.  But they'll think there's a controversy, and that experts agree with them, by god.

Strawman much?


Not even a bit, and you know it.
 
2014-03-25 11:16:40 AM  

m1ke: ikanreed: But see, the idiots who are going to come into this thread, they aren't going to side with the "less alarmist" camp, that they think, without examining, agrees with them.  No.  They'll fall into the exact same spectrum of outright denial of science(they'll think these guys agree with them), the "it's not going to cause any serious problems" crowd(they'll think these guys agree with them), and the "so what?" crowd(they think these guys will agree with them)

None of these people will be anywhere near what the legitimate dissenters are actually saying.  But they'll think there's a controversy, and that experts agree with them, by god.

You're a big fan of punctuation.


How else are you supposed to separate ideas so that people don't misrepresent what you're trying to say?
 
2014-03-25 11:34:16 AM  

SpaceButler: So, the working group in charge of identifying risks is saying "this is going to be catastrophic", while the economist in charge of the report's economic analysis says "if we take the right adaptive actions then it might merely be awful".

Thank goodness the BBC made the nature of this disagreement clear with their headline, "Dissent among scientists over key climate impact report".  Imagine how irresponsible it would have been to make it sound like there's fundamental scientific disagreement about the reality of climate change.


Maybe they've seen all the play that Time magazine has gotten, and wanted some of that sweet denier action?

/I'd give pretty good odds that the article will be linked here on FARK in the future by people who don't read anything other than the headline
 
2014-03-25 12:52:21 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: SevenizGud: Shakin_Haitian: Good, because I have a graph of the temperature in my back yard from yesterday afternoon to 3 am clearly showing that the earth is cooling.

Huh, I have one like that, except:

1. It is on my computer
2. It is for the last 17 years
3. It is from NASA's own data.

Hide the decline it's a hiatus

Don't worry, Chicken Little, that warming is coming back reeeeeeal soon, amiright?

2014-17 = 1997

Why did you choose 1997 as a starting year?  It's kind of a weird year to start, isn't it?


Because 1998 is an outlier anomaly from back then.  That's why they always start from 1997-98: 98's record high temperature wasn't surpassed until 2005.  It'd be like bowling a 200 game while you have a 100 average, then someone using that game to claim you didn't improve a bit five years later when you average 170.
 
2014-03-25 01:11:33 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: LasersHurt: It's absolutely possible for us to mitigate many of the effects, so the guy has a valid point. Not sure why the headline seems to exaggerate the degree of dissent, however.

I mean 2% reduction in crop capacity per decade for 100 years? I think we can overcome that pretty damned easily.

That's why I tend to agree with "dissent guy" from TFA.  Straight-up alarmism (it's irreversible and we're all boned no matter what!) is counter productive, IMO.  If people feel like it's hopeless, they won't see any reason to change their habits and it'll only make the situation worse.  If the message is focused on: "here's how we can avoid some really bad stuff, if we all get our act together and work hard," that'll have a much more beneficial effect.

Give the world something to strive for, and we'll have a decent chance of making a decent future for ourselves.


That's how I interpreted it too.  It's not a bad over whether it's "apocalyptic" versus merely "very, very awful."  It seems to be a debate whether we will even more boned if we fail to discuss incremental, positive steps that are available to help mitigate the risks.
 
2014-03-25 01:15:40 PM  

dready zim: Prof Richard Tol is an economist at the University of Sussex, who has been the convening lead author of the chapter on economics.
He was involved in drafting the summary but has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.
"The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together," he told BBC News.
"This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity."

It seems from the words of people involved that the first draft said there were issues but that we could cope with them but we would have to act and the second draft is apocalyptic prophesy.

I keep saying that the only way forward is to stop with the hyperbole and to state the issues clearly and by not hyping them up. Some people say `where are these claims of apocalyptic doom and gloom that you say are being said?`. Here they are. It`s the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Don`t try to mitigate, YOU ARE ALL DOOMED!

People simply don`t believe the hype, there`s even a song about it...


There is nothing we can do but adapt now.  We probably could have done something if we'd started 30 years ago, but there has been such a campaign of disinformation and sharp partisan polarization on this issue that we'll just be along for the ride from this point out.

I take a small measure of comfort that my little corner of the world will probably end up more like Northern California, a little warmer, a little wetter, and the apples we love to grow will go away as the frosts vanish completely and be supplanted with warmer weather fruits :(.
 
2014-03-25 01:18:59 PM  

OneFretAway: HMS_Blinkin: LasersHurt: It's absolutely possible for us to mitigate many of the effects, so the guy has a valid point. Not sure why the headline seems to exaggerate the degree of dissent, however.

I mean 2% reduction in crop capacity per decade for 100 years? I think we can overcome that pretty damned easily.

That's why I tend to agree with "dissent guy" from TFA.  Straight-up alarmism (it's irreversible and we're all boned no matter what!) is counter productive, IMO.  If people feel like it's hopeless, they won't see any reason to change their habits and it'll only make the situation worse.  If the message is focused on: "here's how we can avoid some really bad stuff, if we all get our act together and work hard," that'll have a much more beneficial effect.

Give the world something to strive for, and we'll have a decent chance of making a decent future for ourselves.

That's how I interpreted it too.  It's not a bad over whether it's "apocalyptic" versus merely "very, very awful."  It seems to be a debate whether we will even more boned if we fail to discuss incremental, positive steps that are available to help mitigate the risks.


Necessity will dictate using all available methods of improving crop yields, and continue to develop new ones.

After all, necessity is the mother of all invention.
 
2014-03-25 01:30:39 PM  

OneFretAway: HMS_Blinkin: LasersHurt: It's absolutely possible for us to mitigate many of the effects, so the guy has a valid point. Not sure why the headline seems to exaggerate the degree of dissent, however.

I mean 2% reduction in crop capacity per decade for 100 years? I think we can overcome that pretty damned easily.

That's why I tend to agree with "dissent guy" from TFA.  Straight-up alarmism (it's irreversible and we're all boned no matter what!) is counter productive, IMO.  If people feel like it's hopeless, they won't see any reason to change their habits and it'll only make the situation worse.  If the message is focused on: "here's how we can avoid some really bad stuff, if we all get our act together and work hard," that'll have a much more beneficial effect.

Give the world something to strive for, and we'll have a decent chance of making a decent future for ourselves.

That's how I interpreted it too.  It's not a bad over whether it's "apocalyptic" versus merely "very, very awful."  It seems to be a debate whether we will even more boned if we fail to discuss incremental, positive steps that are available to help mitigate the risks.


A reasonable point in general, but note the main purpose of this report is to identify vulnerabilities to climate change. We need to understand where the problems will/could occur before discussing those positive steps. The next report in the series will have more about potential solutions.
 
2014-03-25 01:38:34 PM  

SevenizGud: Shakin_Haitian: Good, because I have a graph of the temperature in my back yard from yesterday afternoon to 3 am clearly showing that the earth is cooling.

Huh, I have one like that, except:

1. It is on my computer
2. It is for the last 17 years
3. It is from NASA's own data.

Hide the decline it's a hiatus

Don't worry, Chicken Little, that warming is coming back reeeeeeal soon, amiright?



2.bp.blogspot.com
I see you are gathering more definitive data.
 
2014-03-25 01:50:50 PM  
Most of you are too young to remember back when that dipshiat  fiveizgud used to always post the plot from 1945 to 1951 to prove that global warming was gone forever.
 
2014-03-25 02:28:00 PM  

Hollie Maea: Most of you are too young to remember back when that dipshiat  fiveizgud used to always post the plot from 1945 to 1951 to prove that global warming was gone forever.


I remember when steel was nicked.

That was hilarious.
 
2014-03-25 02:29:54 PM  

dillengest: OneFretAway: HMS_Blinkin: LasersHurt: It's absolutely possible for us to mitigate many of the effects, so the guy has a valid point. Not sure why the headline seems to exaggerate the degree of dissent, however.

I mean 2% reduction in crop capacity per decade for 100 years? I think we can overcome that pretty damned easily.

That's why I tend to agree with "dissent guy" from TFA.  Straight-up alarmism (it's irreversible and we're all boned no matter what!) is counter productive, IMO.  If people feel like it's hopeless, they won't see any reason to change their habits and it'll only make the situation worse.  If the message is focused on: "here's how we can avoid some really bad stuff, if we all get our act together and work hard," that'll have a much more beneficial effect.

Give the world something to strive for, and we'll have a decent chance of making a decent future for ourselves.

That's how I interpreted it too.  It's not a bad over whether it's "apocalyptic" versus merely "very, very awful."  It seems to be a debate whether we will even more boned if we fail to discuss incremental, positive steps that are available to help mitigate the risks.

A reasonable point in general, but note the main purpose of this report is to identify vulnerabilities to climate change. We need to understand where the problems will/could occur before discussing those positive steps. The next report in the series will have more about potential solutions.


And that's really the report I care about -- I actually think they have the reports backwards, should have had solution propositions before consequences of failing to act.

Unless, of course, it is a "Back to the 1800s standard of living for most" scenario.
 
2014-03-25 03:06:05 PM  
Dissent among scientists over key climate impact report

"Scientists" are not sharply divided.

Richard Tol is not more than one scientist.

Richard Tol is not a scientist at all.

Richard Tol likewise is not "some attendees". Richard Tol likewise is not "some researchers".  Richard Tol likewise is not "Critics".

Jesus Christ, BBC. Get your shiat together.
 
2014-03-25 03:51:31 PM  
Unless someone can prove Steven McIntyre as being a shoddy statistician, I am not alarmed....maybe just a little pensive.

//Looking at you, Jon Snow
 
2014-03-25 03:55:01 PM  

elchupacabra: Unless, of course, it is a "Back to the 1800s standard of living for most" scenario.


I think I would welcome that.
 
2014-03-25 03:57:50 PM  

Jon Snow: "Scientists" are not sharply divided.

Richard Tol is not more than one scientist.

Richard Tol is not a scientist at all.

Richard Tol likewise is not "some attendees". Richard Tol likewise is not "some researchers". Richard Tol likewise is not "Critics".

Jesus Christ, BBC. Get your shiat together.


This. Non-story.
 
2014-03-25 04:07:40 PM  

OneFretAway: elchupacabra: Unless, of course, it is a "Back to the 1800s standard of living for most" scenario.

I think I would welcome that.


I'm in the "Over my dead body" category, myself.  Partly because pretty much everything in life that makes it worth living to me was made possible through modern technology -- including many friends who would never have lived as long without modern technology -- and partly because it would be, literally, over my dead body.
 
2014-03-25 04:13:32 PM  
Scientists are sharply divided on global warming

Obviously that means they're all wrong and the Earth is 6000 years old.

Scientists are sharply divided on global warming over whetherweather or not to tell the Syrians the bad news

/pet peeve
 
2014-03-25 04:22:34 PM  
But some researchers are decidedly unhappy with the draft report.
Prof Richard Tol is an economist at the University of Sussex, who has been the convening lead author of the chapter on economics.


This is not "division between scientists", BBC.
farking terrible.
 
2014-03-25 04:23:43 PM  
I can't believe the BBC is printing useless quotes like this: "But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons - that is just silliness."

Hi.  Syria is in open conflict.  It's one of the worst places on Earth to live right now.  You could have also printed:
"But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or lead in their drinking water, I think they would pick chemical weapons - that is just silliness."
"But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or stray bullets ripping through their home, I think they would pick chemical weapons - that is just silliness."

Is that evidence that no one should worry about lead in their drinking water or random gunfire?

Also, if you're going to get quotes regarding scientific reports, it would be nice if you stuck with talking to scientists.
 
2014-03-25 04:38:51 PM  
Ok, seafood lovers, it looks like it might be time to acquire a taste for jellyfish.
 
2014-03-25 04:46:08 PM  

elchupacabra: OneFretAway: elchupacabra: Unless, of course, it is a "Back to the 1800s standard of living for most" scenario.

I think I would welcome that.

I'm in the "Over my dead body" category, myself.  Partly because pretty much everything in life that makes it worth living to me was made possible through modern technology -- including many friends who would never have lived as long without modern technology -- and partly because it would be, literally, over my dead body.


I'm absolutely down with modern medicine and free streaming porn.  Otherwise, I would make a pretty happy resident of a pre-industrial society.  The ideal mix for me would be having access to modern medicine, but otherwise getting rid of all the little smart phone attention thieves like iPhones and laptops.  Kind of like the Village without M. Night  Shyamalam.
 
2014-03-25 05:45:07 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: LasersHurt: It's absolutely possible for us to mitigate many of the effects, so the guy has a valid point. Not sure why the headline seems to exaggerate the degree of dissent, however.

I mean 2% reduction in crop capacity per decade for 100 years? I think we can overcome that pretty damned easily.

That's why I tend to agree with "dissent guy" from TFA.  Straight-up alarmism (it's irreversible and we're all boned no matter what!) is counter productive, IMO.  If people feel like it's hopeless, they won't see any reason to change their habits and it'll only make the situation worse.  If the message is focused on: "here's how we can avoid some really bad stuff, if we all get our act together and work hard," that'll have a much more beneficial effect.

Give the world something to strive for, and we'll have a decent chance of making a decent future for ourselves.


Alarmism is the only realistic approach. We aren't doing anything so there will be no slowdown.

Scientists lost that fight, big business won. Policies aren't going to change. Therefore worst case scenario and remediation efforts will be the only realistic results.

We are past the point where we can head off consequences. We aren't going to lose NYC or New Orleans. Instead they will build bigger and bigger levies and bulwarks. We will spend trillions just in the US to make sure prime real estate in major cities remain on the market, rather than spending billions to stave off the worst effects.

Also that "2%" they cite in drop in agricultural output is pretty misleading. We have famines because of food distribution not lack of food. Some areas currently big in food production will decline. Some areas with little or no food production now will become more fertile. The problem is that we need to build new infrastructure and these things don't respect national boundaries. That means more expense and different food distribution patterns.

Lots of the world's population already has food security issues. The Egyptian Army for example takes part of the money we give them for defense to bake and distribute bread among the Egyptian poor because food costs more than many can afford. That is duplicated in many other countries where governments subsidize low food prices.

Remove 2% of the food capacity and prices move by far more than 2%. And that can mean mass starvation.

What does that mean? Fewer kids surviving into adulthood. Self-correcting problem, right? No. Because the higher the child mortality rates the more children parents try to have. So more starvation actually leads to higher populations one things are somewhat stable again.

2% decline means a lot of misery. Enough to start wars over.
 
2014-03-25 08:23:42 PM  

SevenizGud: Shakin_Haitian: Good, because I have a graph of the temperature in my back yard from yesterday afternoon to 3 am clearly showing that the earth is cooling.

Huh, I have one like that, except:

1. It is on my computer
2. It is for the last 17 years
3. It is from NASA's own data.

Hide the decline it's a hiatus

Don't worry, Chicken Little, that warming is coming back reeeeeeal soon, amiright?


Considering it has not really stopped warming. Yes it has *slowed down* because of external forces, but it has still been one of the hottest decades on record.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029
 
2014-03-26 09:48:19 AM  

piledhigheranddeeper: Unless someone can prove Steven McIntyre as being a shoddy statistician, I am not alarmed....maybe just a little pensive.

//Looking at you, Jon Snow


Looking at his blog, I see two categories of argument:

1) There are potential, theoretical problems with some specific analyses.

He ignores all the other analyses performed differently that show the same results. For example, He claimed that the method that was used to find the "hockey stick" _could_ have possibly, maybe biased the results. When people went back to the data and used other methods, they found the same hockey stick result. There's no statistical problem with pointing out "your methods could maybe have resulted in bias" (his original paper, and most of his blog), but when other methods find the same result, your criticism is invalid.


2) Lies.

McIntyre lied with this statement "Moon Hoax author Stephan Lewandowsky is furious that Frontiers in Psychology has retracted his follow-up article, Recursive Fury."
"Retracted" has a very definite meaning and a journal retracting your paper is devastating blow to any scientist (it's embarrassing enough when the scientist retracts his or her own paper after finding a mistake). The journal did not retract the article; it removed it from its website. This statement by McIntyre is a deliberate lie, being used to slander a scientist he disagrees with.

So yes, I believe McIntyre is using bad statistics.

If McIntyre has a valid argument, one that you believe supports the statement "AGW is not happening", please provide a citation.
 
2014-03-26 09:59:03 AM  
Just a technical point...

Retraction Watch carried the following news item:

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

And the statement heading the notice by Frontiers (the publisher) uses the word "retract":

"This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article."

I understand your argument about the impact of the word retract, but the fact that McIntyre uses that particular word, when in fact the publisher also used the word seems to be a formally correct usage.
 
2014-03-26 10:30:19 AM  

joeshill: And the statement heading the notice by Frontiers (the publisher) uses the word "retract":


Thank you.

piledhigheranddeeper, I'd like to retract my statement that McIntyre's use of the word "retract" was a deliberate lie and slander.


/Quick note to joeshill: if you quote the person you're responding to (even just a phrase or two), it makes these threads easier to follow. I know your post immediately followed mine today, but sometimes someone else submits a response just a little ahead of you.
 
2014-03-26 10:43:45 AM  
 

draypresct: /Quick note to joeshill: if you quote the person you're responding to (even just a phrase or two), it makes these threads easier to follow. I know your post immediately followed mine today, but sometimes someone else submits a response just a little ahead of you.



Yes.  I probably should have quoted.   I'll plead laziness.
 
2014-03-26 10:58:36 AM  

draypresct: joeshill: And the statement heading the notice by Frontiers (the publisher) uses the word "retract":

Thank you.

piledhigheranddeeper, I'd like to retract my statement that McIntyre's use of the word "retract" was a deliberate lie and slander.


I will just throw one more point out there.  Unfortunately it would take more digging than I want to delve into to come up with a good quote.

Having read McIntyre's blog for a few years now, off and on, I've seen multiple posts by him where he states his opinion that AGW _is_ occurring.  He has disappointed a lot of the anti-belief-in-AGW (ABIA) crowd on multiple occasions by not taking a stand firmly in that camp.

I did find this quote: "McIntyre even slammed Virginia Attorney General Ken Ken Cuccinelli's investigation into Hockey Stick creator Michael Mann, describing Mann's work as "diligently published" and Cussinelli's as "abuse of administrative prerogative."  Not exactly what the crowd was hoping to hear from one its undeniable heroes. "

It is my opinion that McIntyre is hailed as a hero to the ABIA crowd because he does not hesitate to criticize what he sees as (in his opinion) "bad science".  This seems to include non-disclosure of contradictory data, non-archiving of raw data, and poor use of statistics.   It is further my opinion that this is because he has a background in mining (and mining exploration), where any claims one makes have to be thoroughly backed up by raw data, and any contradictory results absolutely must be disclosed.  (There have been a number of minerals/mining scandals which have established this as a necessity in the field).   The fact that scientists publish results with far less rigor seems to sit poorly with him.

I am not taking a stand either for or against him - just trying to look at his individual motivation.  I have no interest in the throwing of epithets.  I don't believe they serve any useful purpose.
 
2014-03-26 11:04:20 AM  
Okay.  One more quote.  Reportedly from "Frontiers in Psychology" (publisher of paper)

"Thank you for your message. Our decision on the retraction of this article was taken on the basis of a number of factors. This decision had nothing to do with caving in to pressure and was driven by our own analysis of various factors and advice received. Frontiers is not engaged in the climate science debate but is clearly engaged in favor of solid science, and that it is of regret that the weight of the different factors involved led us to the conclusion that we had to retract the article.
Frontiers cannot comment further on this decision and we appreciate your understanding. "

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/21/the-paper-they-don t- want-you-to-read/comment-page-1/#comment-770446
 
2014-03-26 11:42:51 AM  
Call me when they release the volume on how to fix things. Hopefully it includes technological solutions, like genetically modified wheat resilient to variations in moisture and temperature and some way to make jellyfish appetizing.
 
2014-03-26 12:44:52 PM  

joeshill: "This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article."


joeshill: This decision had nothing to do with caving in to pressure and was driven by our own analysis of various factors and advice received. Frontiers is not engaged in the climate science debate but is clearly engaged in favor of solid science, and that it is of regret that the weight of the different factors involved led us to the conclusion that we had to retract the article.


I'm guessing the motivation behind your second post is the fact that these two quotes appear to have opposite implications?

One came from the journal, the other is 'reported' to come from the journal from an anti-AGW blog.

What is your opinion on what is going on?
 
2014-03-26 12:55:38 PM  

piledhigheranddeeper: Unless someone can prove Steven McIntyre as being a shoddy statistician, I am not alarmed....maybe just a little pensive.


joeshill: I've seen multiple posts by him where he states his opinion that AGW _is_ occurring. He has disappointed a lot of the anti-belief-in-AGW (ABIA) crowd on multiple occasions by not taking a stand firmly in that camp. . . . It is my opinion that McIntyre is hailed as a hero to the ABIA crowd because he does not hesitate to criticize what he sees as (in his opinion) "bad science".


Phd implied that McIntyre supported his position that AGW is not something to be alarmed about.
As someone who has followed McIntyre's blog, do you think this is a valid conclusion? If so, can you point to an argument made by McIntyre that supports the idea that AGW is happening at a rate much lower than the IPCC conclusions?

Regarding my statistical critique of McIntyre's approach:
Statistically, do you think it is valid to analyze data in multiple ways (each with potential possible flaws - nothing is completely perfect) and report a conclusion if it is supported by all the different analyses?

When McIntyre points out the potential, possible flaws with one method, does he acknowledge that the other methods (which do not have that particular possible flaw) come to the same conclusion?
 
2014-03-26 01:06:06 PM  

draypresct: joeshill: "This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article."

joeshill: This decision had nothing to do with caving in to pressure and was driven by our own analysis of various factors and advice received. Frontiers is not engaged in the climate science debate but is clearly engaged in favor of solid science, and that it is of regret that the weight of the different factors involved led us to the conclusion that we had to retract the article.

I'm guessing the motivation behind your second post is the fact that these two quotes appear to have opposite implications?

One came from the journal, the other is 'reported' to come from the journal from an anti-AGW blog.

What is your opinion on what is going on?



I'm not sure what my own motivation was, other than, "hmm, an additional comment by the publisher..."

My first impression on reading the first quote was that the journal (Frontiers in Psychology) was attempting to stand by the article while at the same time trying to insulate themselves from any potential litigation, should it arise.

The second quote, if genuine (and it's authenticity is helped slightly by the fact that the accompanying article and comments section seemed overwhelmingly friendly to the author (lewandowsky)), seemed to imply more factors were at play than simply the threat of litigation.  The phrase "weight of the different factors" stands out to me.

I think the Journal is walking a thin line.  On the one hand, they accepted and published the article.  And a retraction reflects as poorly on them as it does on the author.  (It implies a lack of diligence.)  It may be that the editor and referees are still thinking it's a good piece.  Or it may be that one or more editors or referees are now saying "waitasec".  We really just don't know.

The valid criticisms (as opposed to hyperbole) of the piece seem to boil down to:

1) Several subjects are identified as supporting anti-agw viewpoints.
2) These subjects in the article are determined to have some degree of "conspiracy ideation".
3) Subjects are identified by name.
4) Some of these identified subjects actually hold public viewpoints in the opposite direction.  And notified the publisher of this fact.

I think that if one is to make statements of facts in a published research paper about individuals, it is important to make sure your presentation of those individuals is beyond reproach.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | 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