Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

In other words: I picked the numbers that most strongly weaken my argument, and still came out with a strong argument.

No, I already told you that your "strong argument" simply doesn't make sense. For instance:

No mention of how many rejected, how many expressed uncertainty, and how many expressed that their paper was not about AGW. There's also the fact that 34.9% of RESPONDENTS claimed no position themselves on AGW, which is really hard to do if you're a climate scientist unless you're uncertain.

Your argument isn't "strong". It's based on a fundamental misconception. The "RESPONDENTS" didn't claim "no position themselves on AGW". They rated the position stated by their paper, not their own position. Your supposedly "strong arguments" are filled with simplistic "mistakes" like this.

You're trying to use a fallacy of equivocation: I said "bias" to indicate that one method of analysis favors a position more than another, and you're repeating "bias" to say "lies and damned lies to support a pre-conceived outcome." Maybe learn not to be a deceptive, dishonest asshole?

Charming. It's fascinating that you baselessly accuse me of saying "lies and damned lies to support a pre-conceived outcome" when I never said that, then baselessly call me a deceptive, dishonest asshole. You're almost as charming as Jane/Lonny Eachus.

You completely ignored my rebuttal, and simply flung a new set of accusations.

Your rebuttle was to claim those papers weren't relevant. I responded by pointing out that Cooke excluded them because they didn't take a direct position, even though they were relevant. In other words: you said, "They weren't about that!", and I said, "Yes they were; they just didn't have a yes/no conclusion." Again: you're lying to try to dodge the argument, and you're trying to poison the well by making false claims about the context of the debate.

Once again, you're baselessly accusing me of lying. How charming. You've also failed once again to quote anything I actually said, while putting quotation marks around words I never said. Here's what I actually said:

Really? Are you absolutely sure that those peer-reviewed papers didn't just have "global climate change" or "global warming" as keywords? Because that's how C13 actually selected their sample.

You seem to be incorrectly saying that every single paper which includes those keywords is an attribution study. If you were correct, you'd be able to provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities". Is it even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies?

Try to use your approach to estimate the consensus on plate tectonics or evolution. Are abstracts which don't explicitly state that they agree with those theories actually saying "we don't know"? If that's really your position, you must also not think there's a scientific consensus about plate tectonics or evolution.

Note that I actually asked if it was even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies. Perhaps you can't quote my actual words because you'd have to explain why you can't provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities".

Maybe if you spent a little less time complaining about women, you'd have more time to provide those 7,930 abstract quotes.

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

As an analogy, should I disagree with a US government agency (and most of the scientific community) just because some guy somewhere with a PhD claims that "evolutionary theory is mostly religion"?

So former cartoonist, activist blogger John Cook's paper is akin to "evolutionary theory" in your analogy...??

No, I was quoting the same climate contrarian GiordyS has cited, Dr. Roy Spencer, addressing the U.S. Congress at 3:23:10. Should I disagree with most of the scientific community just because Dr. Spencer told the U.S. Congress that "evolutionary theory is mostly religion"?

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

Since when are ordinary people supposed to ignore mountains of evidence right in front of our noses simply because NASA pretends it doesn't exist?

It's hilarious that you're implying that's what I was suggesting. Instead, I'm actually saying that the "mountains of evidence" right in front of your nose are a mirage. It's libelous nonsense that's being repeated by blog commenters without subject expertise, probably because they're just "having fun" baselessly accusing scientists of dishonesty.

You sure give the government a lot of power if you are not willing to think for yourself. Do you EVER disagree with a US government agency?

I've repeatedly thought for myself and shared the open source code behind my analyses. It's just that the results of my research broadly agree with statements from NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, etc.

As an analogy, should I disagree with a US government agency (and most of the scientific community) just because some guy somewhere with a PhD claims that "evolutionary theory is mostly religion"?

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

Many blog commenters go on Gish Gallops for dozens if not hundreds of pages, instantly dropping each apparently earnest point and just flinging another instead of answering or even just acknowledging the rebuttal.

Sadly, that's what you seem to be doing. You completely ignored my rebuttal, and simply flung a new set of accusations. Most of which didn't make sense. Here's the only part that made enough sense to rebut. Please note that I'm quoting your words and responding directly to you, but only as an example so you can do that with my last comment. Otherwise I'll let you have the last word; I'm tired of these endless and libelous Gish Gallops.

Of the papers which received self-rating, 36.9% had abstracts expressing a position of consensus for AGW. When they phoned up the authors and asked them, 62.7% of those authors self-rated their position and the position of their paper as in consensus. In other words: the self-rating system is biased *toward* AGW.

When they emailed the authors, more of the authors said their paper as a whole endorsed the consensus than the abstract ratings alone did. That doesn't show that the self-rating system is somehow biased *toward* AGW. It probably shows that an abstract contains less information than the paper as a whole. Surprise!

Even more bizarrely, bluefoxlucid even seems to grasp this point:

The whole thing also takes implicit endorsements of AGW as endorsements--which is fair, and notable. If you write a paper that strongly supports AGW and you try to conclude AGW is not a thing, you're just delusional. There's a large difference between being wrong and being delusional: wrong just means your facts are incorrect; delusional means the facts are right in front of you and you refuse to believe them. Evidence for the fairness of this methodology includes that more papers self-rate in support for AGW than do papers whose abstracts declare support: scientists who produce evidence for AGW and don't come out to declare it as such likely expect you to recognize the obvious.

Yeah. Most scientists don't see the need to include obvious information in the abstract, but many try to include background information in their papers' introductory sections. Don't you see how this supports the idea that an abstract contains less information than the paper as a whole, rather than supporting the accusation that "the self-rating system is biased *toward* AGW"?

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

Or maybe GiordyS is just as confused as Jane Q. Public, and all of your hysterical and libelous accusations are baseless? Remember the stages of grief. You should find it bothersome that NASA contradicts you first, then second you should eventually start moving past that first stage of grief and start considering the possibility that NASA understands science better than web developers do.

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

Problem #1: 11,944 research papers which were all specifically about climate change and human influence; they removed the 7,930 "We don't know" from the numbers... (Often, deluded opponents will claim the rejected papers had "climate" as a keyword but were not about climatology; that is false: all 11,944 papers were selected from a larger such set, and were selected because they explored human-caused climate change.)

Really? Are you absolutely sure that those peer-reviewed papers didn't just have "global climate change" or "global warming" as keywords? Because that's how C13 actually selected their sample.

You seem to be incorrectly saying that every single paper which includes those keywords is an attribution study. If you were correct, you'd be able to provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities". Is it even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies?

Try to use your approach to estimate the consensus on plate tectonics or evolution. Are abstracts which don't explicitly state that they agree with those theories actually saying "we don't know"? If that's really your position, you must also not think there's a scientific consensus about plate tectonics or evolution.

... took count of the papers which were *definitely* certain, determined that 97% of *those* support human-caused global warming, and labeled that as 97% of *all*.

No, they labeled that as 97% of papers stating a position on the primary cause of global warming. Which is true.

Problem #2: False equivocation. They took count of the number of published papers, and claimed the ratio of published papers agreeing with a position as the ratio of *scientists*. ...

Wrong. They cited Doran and Zimmerman 2009 and Anderegg et al. 2010 and Verheggen 2014 which really are surveys of scientists.

Comment Re:10%. 90% (Score 1) 795

And just FYI: I'm not going to argue about that fact. If anybody doubts that "C13" was garbage, all they have to do is spend a few minutes on Google and view the evidence.

I spent a few minutes on Google and viewed the evidence from NASA. They don't agree with Jane Q. Public's "utter garbage" accusation.

Comment Re:Sandy (Score 1) 138

Actually, Dr. Deanna Conners tracked down that graph's source and said: "... So it appears that much of the pre-1960 data were related to incendiary forest fires (per http://www.interfire.org/featu... , an incendiary fire is one that is set intentionally) and not to true wildfires. The post-1960 dataset that I analyzed only contained data for wildfires; the National Interagency Fire Center explicitly separates the wildfire data from the prescribed fire data. Hence, comparisons to earlier data may indeed be akin to comparing apples to oranges..."

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]

Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible crackpots they heard at a conspiracy theory echo chamber.

Of course, Lonny's just projecting again. Jane/Lonny previously cited ocean heat content (OHC) measurements based on satellite data until I showed him that those OHC data doesn't support his denial of global warming. Guess which of those satellite datasets reveals ~90% of heat added to Earth, and which only reveals a cherry-picked ~1%.

Comment Re: Contrived Correlation (Score 1) 252

Here's how to tell the difference between a true skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. A true skeptic would actually look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup) then admit that Layzej and other scientists are right. In contrast, a conspiracy theorist won't click on links even though he specifically asked for them, and certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

Slashdot Top Deals

This system will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...