Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:FYI (Score 1) 592

by tbannist (#47922683) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

But 3 consecutive years of expansion would be....

Good news?

It's not happening, though. This year is really, really close to last year so it's more like a 2 year rebound from a new record low. If we're really lucky, 2012's minimum extent record will stand for a decade or longer. That would be good news for us, but I don't expect it to.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by tbannist (#47870549) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...Carbon Tax, Environmental Regulation, and all the other proposed measures that wind up trading modest pollution levels for wideband economic austerity.

Why would you think that Carbon taxes or environmental regulation would actually trigger "wideband economic austerity"? We've been through similar measures at least twice before (CFCs and Acid Rain) and as non-intuitive as it may seem now, the interventions actually turned out to have a small positive effect on the economy. It turns out that when pollution is free, there is a certain inertia where companies often don't take steps that would actually be beneficial to their bottom line because the benefit is perceived to be small and potentially risky.

Furthermore, there are several countries (and areas withing individual countries) already have carbon taxes and regulation and they have not been driven out of business by their less-regulated competition. Norway, for example, has had a carbon tax for over 20 years.

Comment: Re:Scientific Consensus (Score 1) 770

by tbannist (#47852939) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Science is about provability, consensus is about getting majority or even a plurality of opinions.

I'm afraid not. Mathematics is about provabiity. Science is about predictability (or understanding). That's why science must be repeatable.

These two things are mutually exclusive.

Again, I'm afraid not. You inevitably need a consensus that something has been "proven". You need independent verification that your results are correct and if no one can reproduce your results, they won't be accepted and won't be considered "proven".

Piltdown Man was once "consensus". We know how that turned out.

As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.

- Piltdown Man page on Wikipedia

I'm not too familiar with the case, but I'm doubtful that there was ever a consensus on his piltdown man, even among the people that didn't want to believe that Dawson was a con man, there was much disagreement over how the fake find should be interpreted.

Comment: Re:Straight to the pointless debate (Score 1) 136

by tbannist (#47824991) Attached to: Out of the Warehouse: Climate Researchers Rescue Long-Lost Satellite Images

If some dope seriously compromised the thermometer's accuracy, say buy putting it near a radiative surface, then accuracy is lost and you have to throw the data out. You can't average out the error and just subtract it from all the numbers. The data is useless - you cannot repair inaccurate data.

Where you're talking about measurements, there's a difference between accuracy and bias. An accurate instrument with a known bias can still be useful.

Comment: Re:Straight to the pointless debate (Score 1) 136

by tbannist (#47824933) Attached to: Out of the Warehouse: Climate Researchers Rescue Long-Lost Satellite Images

The ground station temperature data has been quite thoroughly manipulated, always "adjusted" in the direction of confirming the theories of the researcher making the adjustment, Pardon my skepticism about that data.

Strangely enough BEST (partially funded by the Koch brothers) actually found that was not true. They actually found some the adjustments were over-correcting for warm bias and actually reducing the actual warming trend by a small amount. Unsurprisingly, adjustments are made to correct both unusual up and unusual down spikes in the temperature records which are often caused by changes in staffing, location, and methodology at temperature stations.

The satellite data, however, has no such shadow over it. It's good, solid data - the sort of thing one expects in science.

I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

... then I'll be annoyed that the data source I trust has been mixed with adjusted data.

Too late, the satellite data has to be adjusted to be usable in the first place and UAH, for example, has been through 10 rounds of adjustments to correct various errors.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262

Ok, so who are the patriarchy? I guarantee you wont have an answer or it will be so abstract that it can encompass everything like some conspiracy theory.

Your reply makes little sense. There is no "the patriarchy". That's like asking "who are the democracy"? Patriachy is a potential aspect of a society, as opposed to matriarchy and gender-neutrality.

I got another one for you. How can you tell if a character in a narrative is being sexually objectified? I guarantee you wont have that answer either.

Whether or not a character is being sexually objectified would likely be a subjective evaluation, though there are times where there is near unanimous agreement that it is happening.

If you are under the illusion that I'm some sort of gender crusader, you've been misled.

Comment: Re:unfair policy (Score 2) 302

by tbannist (#47803053) Attached to: Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.

Why, exactly, would you consider the papers that don't talk about a topic when considering whether there is a consensus of support for that topic or not? If you were seeking to see if a dog would make a good pet, how many books about orangutans would you read? Also, the Cook paper also clearly states what percentage of the papers took a position on climate change (32.6%) in the abstract.

According to your logic, we can lower the support level for any topic by simply including more papers that don't take a position on the topic. It doesn't even have to be climate change. Why not gravity, the round-earth hypothesis, or religion. Hey, if we include enough irrelevant papers we can get the consensus level down to 0.0001% for anything.

Comment: Re:unfair policy (Score 1) 302

by tbannist (#47802995) Attached to: Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

The 97% comment is a lie [] and people who repeat it are not interested in the truth.

Following methodology of Legates (geographer), Soon (astrophysicist), Briggs (statistician), Monckton (public speaker), I can prove that gravity is a lie since only 0.01% of papers in the category of science specifically affirm that the force is real and affecting us. That's what they did to get only a 0.3% endorsement of the consensus view of climate change, they included papers that have nothing to do with global climate change to dilute the results. The Cook paper found that 97% of the papers that took a position favoured the consensus view.

Comment: Re:unfair policy (Score 1) 302

by tbannist (#47802919) Attached to: Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted.

Because, as we all know, an ideologically Libertarian political "think tank" funded by gas and coal owners is clearly the most reliable source of information on the effects of pollution released by the gas and coal industries and whether that pollution requires government intervention. There is absolutely no bias, no politics and no conflict of interest there.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262

See this? This is why you come off as a lunatic nutjob with a paranoid obsession about feminists.

You have repeatedly lied and distorted the truth, and when confronted with your paranoid delusional twisting of facts, you focus on one tiny aspect of the commentary so you can ignore the substance of the argument. It is not me who is lying here, friend. It is you. Frankly, it looks like you need serious psychiatric help. Go get some.