Erm, if you're only exposed to "concensus" views and around the edges you get sympathetic nutcases like Lewandowsky claiming anyone who disagrees is a fantasist with a mental problem (oh, the sweet irony), aren't you in exactly the position you are concerned about?

Climate models are currently, at best, when treated as an ensemble (if you buy that as legitimate), skirting along the p 0.05 level of significance in the validation period.

Pointing this out is considered trolling -- it probably offends some religious sensibilities.

Tightening the threshold as the article suggests would mean the model results are not "significant" (i.e., not reasonably distinguishable from natural variation -- note that I am not a "denier" and that I do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas etc. etc.; I am however hugely skeptical of most climate and environmental science that I have investigated).

Is the author mad? p < 0.05 would completely invalidate climate models! That simply can't be true, ergo p >= 0.05 is absolutely necessary in (post-normal) science.

Seconded: I've used Shipito several times and their service has been first class.

Your post can only have been modded down by people who "know the truth" without being in posession of the facts: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/normalized-us-hurricane-damage-1900.html

Let me precis this argument:

(1) The moderation scheme here essentially filters out postings that disagree with the "group-think."

(2) Commenters here are "unusually intelligent" and they define the group-think.

(3) Therefore if you disagree with the group-think, you are probably not "unusually intelligent" (and hence your opinion is probably not worthy of consideration; you belong with the trolls and drunkards).

The problem is step (2), which is a lot of self-serving bollocks. I think the suggestion that Slashdot moderation fosters group-think is on the money.

I have to disagree. Before I go to a heap of effort reproducing your experiment, I want to check that the analysis you ran was the one you described in your paper. After I've convinced myself that you haven't made a mistake here, I may then go and try your experiment on new data, hopefully thereby confirming or invalidating your claims. Indeed, by giving me access to your code you can't then claim that I have misunderstood you if I do obtain an invalidating result.

You need to look up Arrow's impossibility theorem: the problem is unavoidable.

Voted up, then down, then down again? Ha, must have touched a nerve.

Er, you mean shoot the people who adopt position number 4?

This is the kind of suggestion that can only appeal to those with an entrenched position.

In reality, there are at least the following explanations:

1. Those who disagree on action find the argument wanting.

2. Those who disagree on action find the evidence wanting.

3. Those who disagree on action find the remedial policy wanting.

4. Those who disagree on action have some psychological problem.

If you are pro-action and adopt position number 4 then you're essentially acknowledging that your argument isn't compelling (which is also when people stoop to nonsense appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, and so forth). To quote Thomas Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

Thought as much. I wonder if there are *any* classically trained scientists in the IPCC who balk at this sort of nonsense?

Can someone point me to the sums? I'd hate this to be another case of wobbly old expert opinion being touted as something more concrete.

Settings > Change PC Settings > General > Touch Keyboard > "Make the Standard Keyboard Layout Available"

Exactly, which is why anybody touting consensus as having anything to do with science should leave the discussion.

[I do believe this is the first time I've ever agreed with tapecutter.]