skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 It continues to amaze me how great the divide is in our understanding of the world around us. I have a completely different view from you and do not think anything you just wrote is true. But you do, and it is a free country. Cheers! Still, this won't avoid the perception you have created of being part of an elitist, quasi-religious cult. The public will not respond well to your message and unless you find a better way of coming across to people, nothing you fight for will matter. He is correct. You provide no research to support your claims. You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate anything you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If there was external pressure brought to bear (no evidence presented to support this) then it was rightfully so, as the paper was garbage and was not reviewed adequately. It's just a logical hypothesis. Obviously after the paper was reviewed and published, it was immediately controversial and there was a big uproar. Would there have been such scrutinization is the conclusions of the paper were not so controversial? Probably not. Would the editor-in-chief feel the need to resign if the whole thing didn't garner so much attention? Not likely. The response was something like when a politician is caught in a sex scandal. And why does it bother some people to point out the rather obvious conclusion here: bad papers can get through the peer review process. And if this controversial paper managed to get reviewed and published, how many others have slipped through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 He is correct. You provide no research to support your claims. You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate anything you say. This is off topic, not true, and completely personal attack. There is no need for this here, and feel free to PM me these messages. This does not make for good publicity when trying to win over enough people to your side of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 It continues to amaze me how great the divide is in our understanding of the world around us. I have a completely different view from you and do not think anything you just wrote is true. But you do, and it is a free country. Cheers! Still, this won't avoid the perception you have created of being part of an elitist, quasi-religious cult. The public will not respond well to your message and unless you find a better way of coming across to people, nothing you fight for will matter. Wow, you confirmed all of my points in one post. I said: You post tired old debunked denialist nonsense, , - claiming AGW is a quasi-religious cult. Check! You rarely provide links to supporting evidence - you provided no supporting evidence of your claims. Check! Logical fallacies are sprinkled heavily throughout your posts, - you say favoring reality and hard science makes me an elitist. Check! And you love to engage in personal attacks. - the whole tone and language of your response. Check! Thanks, your consistent idiocy has brightened my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 This is off topic, not true, and completely personal attack. There is no need for this here, and feel free to PM me these messages. This does not make for good publicity when trying to win over enough people to your side of the debate. It's not an attack, it's a valid observation. There is a huge difference. Perhaps you should look up 'victim bullying', the practice of someone who attacks others and then claims to be the victim when they respond. Here's a link to HowThingsBreak, an interesting blog with some relevant postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 This is off topic, not true, and completely personal attack. There is no need for this here, and feel free to PM me these messages. This does not make for good publicity when trying to win over enough people to your side of the debate. Pointing out you have failed to substantiate your posts or provide any scientific references is not a personal attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 papers that question global warming and the research methods used are regularly published. here are a few recent ones: Carbonate reefs may have triggered a bout of global cooling Published: 17 August 2011 Citation: Donnadieu, Y., G. Dromart, Y. Goddéris, E. Pucéat, B. Brigaud, G. Dera, C. Dumas, and N. Olivier (2011), A mechanism for brief glacial episodes in the Mesozoic greenhouse, Paleoceanography, 26, PA3212, doi:10.1029/2010PA002100. Exploring the effects of climate change on northern soil carbon Published: 28 July 2011 Citation: Grosse, G., et al. (2011), Vulnerability of high-latitude soil organic carbon in North America to disturbance, J. Geophys. Res., 116, G00K06, doi:10.1029/2010JG001507. Observing changes in atmospheric heat content Published: 23 August 2011 Citation: Peterson, T. C., K. M. Willett, and P. W. Thorne (2011), Observed changes in surface atmospheric energy over land, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16707, doi:10.1029/2011GL048442. Climate model's historical accuracy no guarantee of future success Published: 10 September 2011 Citation: Crook, J. A., and P. M. Forster (2011), A balance between radiative forcing and climate feedback in the modeled 20th century temperature response, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D17108, doi:10.1029/2011JD015924. Thermal expansion not a major source of sea level rise Published: 21 July 2011 Citation: McKay, N. P., J. T. Overpeck, and B. L. Otto-Bliesner (2011), The role of ocean thermal expansion in Last Interglacial sea level rise, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L14605, doi:10.1029/2011GL048280. do you bother to keep up with the actual literature or do you just ingest whatever Watts regurgitates? Wxtrix - Thank you for the links to those research papers. I look forward to reading them soon. Your post is a great example of what I wish we could see more of on this forum - sharing of real information instead of endless content-free rants by commenters who prefer opinion, conjectures, and logical fallacies to actual science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I'm not wrong about the Spencer paper. he know it wasn't strong enough to pass muster at a top tier journal and was willing to compromise his integrity in order to make some political talking points. it's not a surprise you don't understand this. What don't I understand? You aren't even addressing my points. Sure, it wasn't a top tier journal...no one is disputing that. But it still passed the peer review process, got published, and then got a lot of attention thanks mainly to its controversial conclusions. Which no doubt played a role in the response from the editor-in-chief of that journal. And if such a controversial paper can pass peer review (lower class journal or not), how many other less noticable papers have slipped through? Why are you so unwilling to address such easy to comprehend points? You are stuck on discussing the validity of Spencer's paper, which has nothing to do with my points - I agree with you it was flawed. Never once did I defend his paper, other than saying its flaws don't necessarily invalidate all the research. Got it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 you have no clue. Ah, yeah I do. A has-been on the boards for a while now. Your persona speaks to someone who is unhappy with their lot in life, and needs to compensate by being an internet bully. That's all well and fine, but I'd rather be me than you. So you enjoy your internet persona, and I'll enjoy my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I wish it is what it would be too, but unfortunately it's always going to be overrun by the WAWT crowd. You no doubt assume that I read WAWT. I don't. Please stop making broad generalizations and silly assumptions, it makes it nearly impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you. Not to mention every response to me has just been an attempt to make your own points without even reading/comprehending mine. Pretty annoying, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I only mean what I am about to say to help you. In the future, use a comma to separate your sentence. As for asking me to summarize his body of work, why not make a thread regarding Mr. Lindzen and we can dance around there. You can do it here. While your at it start with the AMO and it's effect on the Arctic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 papers that question global warming and the research methods used are regularly published. here are a few recent ones: do you bother to keep up with the actual literature or do you just ingest whatever Watts regurgitates? Those aren 't skeptical papers. They are neutral to the theory at best. Try harder please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Your persona speaks to someone who is unhappy with their lot in life, and needs to compensate by being an internet bully. That's all well and fine, but I'd rather be me than you. Personal attacks! Personal attacks! Where is strongbad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Personal attacks! Personal attacks! Where is strongbad? what personal attack. It was my observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I agree with your post. The questions lie with 4 and 5. As such, the science isn't settled. CO2 science is settled, but that is a far cry from the statement that CO2 has caused all or most of the warming since 1850. That science isn't settled to me, and it is an honest disagreement. So you finally get to your position after 20 pages. What would show you to be wrong? (I have asked you this about five times now with no answer) Are you willing to admit the possibility that you might be wrong? I've already showed how I could be wrong multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Personal attacks! Personal attacks! Where is strongbad? Strongbad is full of personal attacks. He said someone smelled earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 You can do it here. While your at it start with the AMO and it's effect on the Arctic. Since you are unable to Google at the present moment, allow me to assist: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4174.1 A Hemispheric Mechanism for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation MIHAI DIMA Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany, and Faculty of Physics, Department of Atmospheric Physics, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania GERRIT LOHMANN Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany (Manuscript received 23 February 2006, in final form 24 October 2006) ABSTRACT The physical processes associated with the 70-yr period climate mode, known as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), are examined. Based on analyses of observational data, a deterministic mechanism relying on atmosphere–ocean–sea ice interactions is proposed for the AMO. Variations in the thermohaline circulation are reflected as uniform sea surface temperature anomalies in the North Atlantic. These anomalies are associated with a hemispheric wavenumber-1 sea level pressure (SLP) structure in the atmosphere that is amplified through atmosphere–ocean interactions in the North Pacific. The SLP pattern and its associated wind field affect the sea ice export through Fram Strait, the freshwater balance in the northern North Atlantic, and consequently the strength of the large-scale ocean circulation. It generates sea surface temperature anomalies with opposite signs in the North Atlantic and completes a negative feedback. The authors find that the time scale of the cycle is associated with the thermohaline circulation adjustment to freshwater forcing, the SST response to it, the oceanic adjustment in the North Pacific, and the sea ice response to the wind forcing. Finally, it is argued that the Great Salinity Anomaly in the late 1960s and 1970s is part of AMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 So you finally get to your position after 20 pages. What would show you to be wrong? (I have asked you this about five times now with no answer) Are you willing to admit the possibility that you might be wrong? I've already showed how I could be wrong multiple times. I've stated this very position time and again to little avail it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 posting fact is now internet bullying. good grief. you posted your version of the truth. Others disagree with your interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 the thing is: the flaws, as identified in the other thread, do invalidate the research until it is run through another peer review process. But at the same time, it has been demonstrated that the peer review process in itself doesn't validate research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Since you are unable to Google at the present moment, allow me to assist: Sunny, some of these posters are not looking to be convinced. No need to go out of your way for them any longer. That includes responding to some of their childish drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 what personal attack. It was my observation. True or false, it is still a personal attack on character rather than substance. Most people can grasp the difference fairly easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Strongbad is full of personal attacks. He said someone smelled earlier in the thread. pretty sure that was a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 pretty sure that was a joke Much obliged for this post. I did not feel like directly responding to such nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 if you say so. Isn't that the logical conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Your persona speaks to someone who is unhappy with their lot in life, and needs to compensate by being an internet bully. That's all well and fine, but I'd rather be me than you. what personal attack. It was my observation. Nope, that was definitely an attack. When you comment on forum behavior, that is typically an observation. When you make completely off-topic comments on your opinion about someone's personality or motives, that is an attack. No question about that. The only question is - was it egregious enough to bring to the attention of the moderators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 But at the same time, it has been demonstrated that the peer review process in itself doesn't validate research. You're correct - but why didn't the reviewers of Spencer & Braswell spot the paperr's flaws. Certainly they were easy enough to spot after publication. Were the reviewers incompetent, or was this a case of pal-review instead of peer-review? In any event the paper was widely hailed by the pseudo-skeptical denialist communitythe moment is was published. Were they honest skeptics, they would have given Spencer's paper the same thorough scrutiny Mann's papers receive. That didn't happen, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Nope, that was definitely an attack. When you comment on forum behavior, that is typically an observation. When you make completely off-topic comments on your opinion about someone's personality or motives, that is an attack. No question about that. The only question is - was it egregious enough to bring to the attention of the moderators? Probably not with the line "I am an unpopular electric eel in a tankful of catfish" as her member title.... And trix is a tough girl....she's seen/heard a lot worse in her storied career as a poster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I've stated this very position time and again to little avail it seems. Not really. You weren't very clear in your assertion until about 20 pages in. Now care to answer my questions? What would show you to be wrong? (I have asked you this about five times now with no answer) Are you willing to admit the possibility that you might be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Nope, that was definitely an attack. When you comment on forum behavior, that is typically an observation. When you make completely off-topic comments on your opinion about someone's personality or motives, that is an attack. No question about that. The only question is - was it egregious enough to bring to the attention of the moderators? go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.