skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Why don't you read some of the things you wrote about why you only use peer-reviewed research and get back to me. If you're going to accuse me of things I have not said, I suggest you present the evidence. And you never answered my question either. Your inability to answer is telling. Deflect, detract, troll. Repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 If you're going to accuse me of things I have not said, I suggest you present the evidence. And you never answered my question either. Your inability to answer is telling. Deflect, detract, troll. Repeat. Where have I accused you of things you haven't said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Whoever said they were? I've always used the term denier to refer to deniers and skeptics to refer to skeptics. I'd define a denier as somebody who ignores all evidence they don't like and is completely irrational. I'd define a skeptic as somebody who is able to discuss rationally but does not yet fully understand the evidence of AGW. And no.. I am not only for conclusions that fit my expectations. I am for all conclusions which are proven scientifically. Blatant lie. You have used the terms interchangably on many occasions and conistently fail to differentiate between different types of skeptics, instead just calling "them" morons. As far as your definition of a skeptic: finally you say something humorous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Of course I would. If the results were different than GISS/HadCRUT you can bet that it would be because it contained errors which would be found in peer-review. So yes, of course I would point out that it hasn't been through peer-review and that it would likely be rejected by peer-review. And because I actually take the time to read these studies and understand the science involved, I could probably point out exactly what errors were being made and exactly why it would be rejected. With knowlege and expertise like this, who needs peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Excellent work guys, as usual, not sure why I even read these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Excellent work guys, as usual, not sure why I even read these threads. I apologize. It is brutal and most of the forum posters put most of the blame on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Blatant lie. You have used the terms interchangably on many occasions and conistently fail to differentiate between different types of skeptics, instead just calling "them" morons. As far as your definition of a skeptic: finally you say something humorous! No I haven't used the terms interchangeably.. you have just assumed that. It's funny how skeptics won't allow anybody to use the term denier, as if deniers like Anthony Watts don't actually exist. You assume that when the term denier is used it refers to all skeptics because you are overly sensitive and because you always see things as black and white. How would you define a skeptic? (keeping in mind the fact that the essential components of AGW theory have been objectively corroborated and that the skeptic position is fundamentally wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 With knowlege and expertise like this, who needs peer review? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the existing surface temperature record is valid. Just some reasonable intelligence and an ounce of objectivity. Unfortunately, many people lack both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Excellent work guys, as usual, not sure why I even read these threads. For the record, taco is the one that has turned this into 6 pages of trolling me accusing me of being a hypocrite because I believe the results of this study to be valid even though it hasn't yet passed peer review. I have no interest in this discussion, but I'm not going to be called a hypocrite by a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Excellent work guys, as usual, not sure why I even read these threads. When it comes to global warming, the nature of discourse on display here isn't isolated to this forum. It extends all the way to the U.S. Congress in much the way. An intelligent species we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 When it comes to global warming, the nature of discourse on display here isn't isolated to this forum. It extends all the way to the U.S. Congress in much the way. An intelligent species we? The AGW folks are the holders of intelligence.....pity they failed to "learn" how to deal with the "dumb" folks....maybe the mirror can offer some clues as to your percieved flaws in humanity. However, one needs to look past the greatness of the image therein reflected..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The AGW folks are the holders of intelligence.....pity they failed to "learn" how to deal with the "dumb" folks....maybe the mirror can offer some clues as to your percieved flaws in humanity. However, one needs to look past the greatness of the image therein reflected..... Why the personal attack? If you want my personal opinion, I don't think skeptics are "dumb". I do think most are ideologically driven to denounce any concept which threatens their world view. You look in the mirror and ask the person you see there if an implied threat to free market capitalism and limited government doesn't affect your position on AGW. This is not all about science for you and you should admit that to us. If you don't care for the current proposals to curb CO2 emissions, then why not offer another set of solutions more compatible with your ideology? Do something intelligent rather than just complain about the situation and bury your head in the sand. I applaud the skeptics Muller and Curry for doing just that by this study! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Why the personal attack? If you want my personal opinion, I don't think skeptics are "dumb". I do think most are ideologically driven to denounce any concept which threatens their world view. You look in the mirror and ask the person you see there if an implied threat to free market capitalism and limited government doesn't affect your position on AGW. This is not all about science for you and you should admit that to us. If you don't care for the current proposals to curb CO2 emissions, then why not offer another set of solutions more compatible with your ideology? Do something intelligent rather than just complain about the situation and bury your head in the sand. I applaud the skeptics Muller and Curry for doing just that by this study! Sorry you felt is was a personal attack. It was more of a general reaction to the "elitist" type statement (with subtle inferences attached) that I bolded in your previous post. If you disagree, we can debate that. You can't percieve my position on the AGW issue, thus you make characterizations of my intelligence (not offering solutions, 'complain?', head burier) which only make sense via YOUR perceptions. I don't offer "solutions" to a problem that I don't "percieve" (as of yet), because a reasoned approach cannot be offered without properly assessing the risks. You (as well as those of your ilk) assess the risk as higher than myself and many other skeptics. My "solution" is to carry out good repeatable science for us to better ascertain the risk. Suggest to people openly and in volunteer fashion, that we as individuals "look" for potential ways to cut down on our "pollution" (non-CO2) emissions, and work that angle. It has the primary effect of cleaning our air (more) and an inherent secondary effect to address a CO2 cutting, due to better efficiency. (You'd appeal to a greater audience, since "real" pollution is something REAL and most everyone can agree to limit as such.) The current method of trying to "change" people isn't working....the complaining is coming from the AGW side in a most arrogant fashion....Hansen and his activism may solidify those on the AGW side, however, middle folk and deniers are turned off by/laughed at such a close relationship between "expert" and "agenda". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Sorry you felt is was a personal attack. It was more of a general reaction to the "elitist" type statement (with subtle inferences attached) that I bolded in your previous post. If you disagree, we can debate that. You can't percieve my position on the AGW issue, thus you make characterizations of my intelligence (not offering solutions, 'complain?', head burier) which only make sense via YOUR perceptions. I don't offer "solutions" to a problem that I don't "percieve" (as of yet), because a reasoned approach cannot be offered without properly assessing the risks. You (as well as those of your ilk) assess the risk as higher than myself and many other skeptics. My "solution" is to carry out good repeatable science for us to better ascertain the risk. Suggest to people openly and in volunteer fashion, that we as individuals "look" for potential ways to cut down on our "pollution" (non-CO2) emissions, and work that angle. It has the primary effect of cleaning our air (more) and an inherent secondary effect to address a CO2 cutting, due to better efficiency. (You'd appeal to a greater audience, since "real" pollution is something REAL and most everyone can agree to limit as such.) The current method of trying to "change" people isn't working....the complaining is coming from the AGW side in a most arrogant fashion....Hansen and his activism may solidify those on the AGW side, however, middle folk and deniers are turned off by/laughed at such a close relationship between "expert" and "agenda". Come on guys...everyone is acting ridiculous....skier you have shown a double standard towards peer review...lakeeffect and taco...you're right to be hesitant towards any concrete conclusions until the papers pass peer review...but listen...the four papers are posted and instead of arguing, take that time and read the articles and discuss. Everyone needs to prove that they don't automatically dismiss evidence because it disagrees with their ideology...that's the problem with both sides of the debate...everyone has an opinion and they only learn about their side instead of being an objective member of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 skier you have shown a double standard towards peer review. No I have not. I am sorry you feel that way. It is not a double standard to believe that peer-review is in general a good guide to what is and is not good scientific work, while at the same time accepting a study which has not yet passed peer-review but which is supported by already existing peer-review and any objective evaluation of the facts which I am familiar with. It's pretty basic. If somebody conducts a new indpendent study that shows the existence of gravity, do I have to wait until the paper passes peer-review before accepting it as valid? Not unless I'm a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Sorry you felt is was a personal attack. It was more of a general reaction to the "elitist" type statement (with subtle inferences attached) that I bolded in your previous post. If you disagree, we can debate that. You can't percieve my position on the AGW issue, thus you make characterizations of my intelligence (not offering solutions, 'complain?', head burier) which only make sense via YOUR perceptions. I don't offer "solutions" to a problem that I don't "percieve" (as of yet), because a reasoned approach cannot be offered without properly assessing the risks. You (as well as those of your ilk) assess the risk as higher than myself and many other skeptics. My "solution" is to carry out good repeatable science for us to better ascertain the risk. Suggest to people openly and in volunteer fashion, that we as individuals "look" for potential ways to cut down on our "pollution" (non-CO2) emissions, and work that angle. It has the primary effect of cleaning our air (more) and an inherent secondary effect to address a CO2 cutting, due to better efficiency. (You'd appeal to a greater audience, since "real" pollution is something REAL and most everyone can agree to limit as such.) The current method of trying to "change" people isn't working....the complaining is coming from the AGW side in a most arrogant fashion....Hansen and his activism may solidify those on the AGW side, however, middle folk and deniers are turned off by/laughed at such a close relationship between "expert" and "agenda". You choose to ignore the scientific consensus. Do you consider the scientific consensus arrogant? Take the personalities out of it. Am I arrogant because I respect the scientific consensus? Is Hansen et al? Part of that consensus is that an immediate, radical shift in the way we produce and utilize energy is in order, such that CO2 emissions are reduced to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050 if we are to successfully avoid a warming of greater than 2C. If I have those numbers wrong, someone please correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Do you consider the scientific consensus arrogant? Take the personalities out of it. Am I arrogant because I respect the scientific consensus? Is Hansen et al? Part of that consensus is that an immediate, radical shift in the way we produce and utilize energy is in order, such that CO2 emissions are reduced to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050 if we are to successfully avoid a warming of greater than 2C. If I have those numbers wrong, someone please correct. I wouldn't say Hansen is part of the scientific consensus... he's made some higher end predictions for sea level rise and temperature rise and his push for 350ppm is a much tougher standard than the 2C cutoff (which would equate to more like 450ppm) that most scientists are pushing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 No I have not. I am sorry you feel that way. It is not a double standard to believe that peer-review is in general a good guide to what is and is not good scientific work, while at the same time accepting a study which has not yet passed peer-review but which is supported by already existing peer-review and any objective evaluation of the facts which I am familiar with. It's pretty basic. If somebody conducts a new indpendent study that shows the existence of gravity, do I have to wait until the paper passes peer-review before accepting it as valid? Scientists make mistakes from time to time, let's wait for the community to comb through these papers until we start talking in absolutes....i agree it's annoying for someone like taco to go on for days about the lack of peer review...it's a distraction don't feed in to it...he should be taking the time to go through those papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Scientists make mistakes from time to time, let's wait for the community to comb through these papers until we start talking in absolutes....i agree it's annoying for someone like taco to go on for days about the lack of peer review...it's a distraction don't feed in to it...he should be taking the time to go through those papers. If the conclusion of the paper were at all controversial or in doubt then perhaps I would wait. But the conclusion of the paper is as basic and incontrovertible as the concept of gravity. So again I ask you: If a paper came out which re-affirmed the existence of gravity, would you make me wait until it had passed peer-review before accepting it as valid? As if somehow all prior-knowledge on the subject had been suddenly rendered inapplicable. Please answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 If the conclusion of the paper were at all controversial or in doubt then perhaps I would wait. But the conclusion of the paper is as basic and incontrovertible as the concept of gravity. So again I ask you: If a paper came out which re-affirmed the existence of gravity, would you make me wait until it had passed peer-review before accepting it as valid? You do not possess the background or expertise to make such a claim (with regards to the validity of this paper). Frankly, any study which uses very sophisticated statistical techniques (such as these) needs to be place under some scrutiny, not because the scientist has an agenda but it's very easy to make a small mistake which could jeopardize the findings. Uncertainty about gravity is no where near the uncertainty in our surface temperature record. I don't mean to berate you, but speaking in absolutes about either side of this debate just leads us down the wrong path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I wouldn't say Hansen is part of the scientific consensus... he's made some higher end predictions for sea level rise and temperature rise and his push for 350ppm is a much tougher standard than the 2C cutoff (which would equate to more like 450ppm) that most scientists are pushing People should not regard a 2C rise in temperature since per-industrial times as trivial. For comparison, at it's peak the last ice age global temp was about 5C lower than the average of the Holocene and sea levels were 10's of meters lower. 2C, or 40% higher still on top of that will drive sea level up significantly even if it takes centuries at the higher temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 You do not possess the background or expertise to make such a claim (with regards to the validity of this paper). Frankly, any study which uses very sophisticated statistical techniques (such as these) needs to be place under some scrutiny, not because the scientist has an agenda but it's very easy to make a small mistake which could jeopardize the findings. Uncertainty about gravity is no where near the uncertainty in our surface temperature record. I don't mean to berate you, but speaking in absolutes about either side of this debate just leads us down the wrong path. Having read most of papers on the development to GISS and HadCRUT I believe I do have the background. And even if I didn't, GISS and HadCRUT have already passed peer-review, making this 'new' sutdy completely redundant. All they're really doing is using the same data which shows unambiguous warming and analyzing in a slightly different way. There was zero chance that this study would find anything but a near equal amount of warming as GISS and HadCRUT found. And yes, uncertainty that the earth has warmed is as low as uncertainty about gravity. It is a matter of basic straightforward observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 How many independent studies confirming what we already know to be true do we need to have before we can call the next one redundant? If somebody comes out next year and makes a big media blitz about their new study are we supposed to pretend that GISS, HadCRUT and BEST do not exist? And that we are SHOCKED to discover the earth has warmed (SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!) ~.8C? Really the only thing new or interesting about this study is the media blitz that is being done and the who the authors are. The actual science behind it is decades old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Having read most of papers on the development to GISS and HadCRUT I believe I do have the background. And even if I didn't, GISS and HadCRUT have already passed peer-review, making this 'new' sutdy completely redundant. All they're really doing is using the same data which shows unambiguous warming and analyzing in a slightly different way. There was zero chance that this study would find anything but a near equal amount of warming as GISS and HadCRUT found. And yes, uncertainty that the earth has warmed is as low as uncertainty about gravity. It is a matter of basic straightforward observation. It's statements like that which make you look foolish...as someone who agrees with most of what you're saying...you still need to tone it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 It's statements like that which make you look foolish...as someone who agrees with most of what you're saying...you still need to tone it down. And I would say the same about you. So much for giving a substantive response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 And I would say the same about you. So much for giving a substantive response. He's right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 You do not possess the background or expertise to make such a claim (with regards to the validity of this paper). Frankly, any study which uses very sophisticated statistical techniques (such as these) needs to be place under some scrutiny, not because the scientist has an agenda but it's very easy to make a small mistake which could jeopardize the findings. Uncertainty about gravity is no where near the uncertainty in our surface temperature record. I don't mean to berate you, but speaking in absolutes about either side of this debate just leads us down the wrong path. That depends. We have no idea why gravity even exists! We can measure its effects and quantify it with high accuracy in most circumstances, but it remains a theory. The temperature record is an observable fact, just as you will fall about 30'/second/second in the Earths gravitational field is a fact. Both can be measured accurately if not precisely in the case of temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 He's right though. No he's not. Keep up the good contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The temperature record is an observable fact, just as you will fall about 30'/second/second in the Earths gravitational field is a fact. Ding ding ding. We have a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Having read this entire thread I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the reactions of many who claim to be honest skeptics. The BEST project's work is as independent as any analysis of the temperature record can be without a time-machine to go back and take additional data. The team is composed of researchers from both sides of the 'debate'. The methods used to process the data have been posted for all to critique. Their work has been a model of transparency and balance. Isn't that the way you've been saying science, and particularly climate science, should work? By posting the drafts of the four project papers they haven't bypassed or subverted the peer review process, they have enhanced it. The papers will each be formally reviewed prior to publication, but instead of just a handful of reviewers seeing the drafts, the review process has been opened to thousands of reviewers. There is no possibility of the papers getting a cursory 'pal-review', and the academic reviewers know that they had better go over the papers carefully because any mistake they miss will certainly be found by reviewers in the blogosphere. Neither the authors, the editors, nor the reviewers want to be embarassed by a bonehead mistake slipping through to publication. Think of the number of flawed papers that would have benefited from a wider review prior to publication. In keeping with standard peer review I expect the formal reviewers to be anonymous, but I do expect the review comments to be posteds on the BEST site. And certainly the revisions will be easy to examine now that we have the drafts to compare with the final papers. Making the draft papers available to the public was a good thing, and I hope that other researchers will follow the example of the BEST team with their own research results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.