Science Not Settled

[swansont]

I would ask why do you all have your panties in a bunch over it.

 

You guys fail to accept anything I say. I elaborate, and all you do is hound me over and over.

 

Get over it.

Many of us don't respond well to deception. And find your "elaboration" to be wanting.

[Arete]

So you can't elaborate on the model then? This is the suspicion I kind of had all along, and a substantial problem with the denialist approach to research.

 

If a study comes along which seems to match up with the preconceived result they want to see, they tend promote it, regardless of whether the methodology is appropriate. You then wind up with a three ringed circus by which a group arguing for a particular viewpoint is holding up flawed, contradictory and logically unlinked bits of "evidence" simply because the results match what they want to see. The easiest way to demonstrate that this is happening is to simply get the person to try and explain WHY the evidence supports their conclusion - chances are the won't/can't, as we've seen here.

 

Combine that with the cry of "fallacy" directed at everything you disagree with while simultaneously engaging in several yourself, combined with insults and condescension, it really seems like you've proven your own point of view to be flawed.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

You guys fail to accept anything I say

 

 

That's probably a fair summary.

The reason for our not blindly accepting it is that you can't seem to supply any evidence.

We point out that a paper on a vanity publishing website isn't much good; and your response isn't to provide better evidence, but to complain that we don't accept tripe.

 

Welcome to science.

[Wild Cobra]

Many of us don't respond well to deception. And find your "elaboration" to be wanting.

What deception have I used?

 

Please elaborate.

 

That's probably a fair summary.

The reason for our not blindly accepting it is that you can't seem to supply any evidence.

We point out that a paper on a vanity publishing website isn't much good; and your response isn't to provide better evidence, but to complain that we don't accept tripe.

 

Welcome to science.

 

I'm not asking you to blindly accept anything I say.

 

I'm asking you to read, understand, and decide for yourself instead of appealing to what the authority of what consensus says.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[swansont]

What deception have I used?

 

Please elaborate.

 

 

We just went through one of this, and one example in our most recent exchange: you say you never claimed the cited paper was correct, but the way you offered it up contradicts that. (an example of moving the goalposts) Your other use of logical fallacies is rampant, and false accusations of fallacy use in others only slightly less common. Those are deceptive practices — we end up discussing the distraction instead of the core subject. You've focused on semantics and other minutia, and avoided discussing science in many posts.

 

I'm not asking you to blindly accept anything I say.

 

I'm asking you to read, understand, and decide for yourself instead of appealing to what the authority of what consensus says.

 

Referring to published work and inferences made from that is not appeal to authority. The consensus is based on science, not on some proclamation.

[Wild Cobra]

I focus on the semantics that are imprtant.

 

I am really getting sick of all this nonsense you spout. I say what I mean, and you argue every point.

 

Why can you accept it when I elaborate? You are the one derailing the discussion, and I have just about had it with this lame tactic you use.

[iNow]

Again, instead of focusing on the core issue, supporting your position, or addressing specific criticisms you choose to lash out personally at others in a childish manner.

 

You'd perhaps be taken more seriously if you did more of the former and less of the latter. This is just a nickels worth of free advice for you.

 

If you're genuine in wanting to have a mature dialog and if you're authentic in your belief that all of the climatologists and experts and everyone else except you is wrong on this topic and just doesn't know it, then you will take it To heart and you will change your style. If you don't, then you will be rightly ignored and dismissed as either a misinformed fool or a laughable troll.

Edited November 1, 2014 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

 

I'm not asking you to blindly accept anything I say.

 

I'm asking you to read, understand, and decide for yourself instead of appealing to what the authority of what consensus says.

But even you accept that there is no reason to think that the paper you told us to read is actually correct.

Why on earth would we believe it?

[swansont]

I focus on the semantics that are imprtant.

 

You weren't able to convince anyone else of that.

 

I am really getting sick of all this nonsense you spout. I say what I mean, and you argue every point.

 

Why can you accept it when I elaborate? You are the one derailing the discussion, and I have just about had it with this lame tactic you use.

 

I don't accept it when you elaborate. Why should I? You rarely cite relevant science or data. It's mostly assertion. One of you first posts was what you "knew" to be true, and haven't been able to back that up particularly well. Any time you want to discuss science, feel free to ignore these "derailments". It's what I would prefer, and I'm guessing the other participants would prefer it as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Then stay ignorant with your confirmation bias.

[iNow]

Then stay ignorant with your confirmation bias.

Laughable troll it is then.

[Arete]

what exactly makes it right, and the others incorrect?

 

Now come on - explain it like I'm a five year old. Why is it better than the others?

Then address it. Please tell us why this model is preferable to others.

So you can't elaborate on the model then?

 

 

I hate to sound like a broken record, but... you aren't answering my question... rather than evading again, can you explain why this model is preferable to other models? A simple explanation would put us all back on the right track.

[Wild Cobra]

 

 

 

I hate to sound like a broken record, but... you aren't answering my question... rather than evading again, can you explain why this model is preferable to other models? A simple explanation would put us all back on the right track.

 

 

I don't know if it is preferable. It views a couple angles that are not in play with other models, and that suggests to me it is preferable. Not absolutle so however.

 

Why can't you accept it is another paper that should be considered, instead of finding lame excuses to dismiss it, because it doesn't suit your confirmnation bias?

[Willie71]

 

I don't know if it is preferable. It views a couple angles that are not in play with other models, and that suggests to me it is preferable. Not absolutle so however.

 

Why can't you accept it is another paper that should be considered, instead of finding lame excuses to dismiss it, because it doesn't suit your confirmnation bias?

 

 

I'll make this simple. Your paper does not meet the minimum standard for scientific credibility. How much more clear does it need to be?

[swansont]

I don't know if it is preferable. It views a couple angles that are not in play with other models, and that suggests to me it is preferable. Not absolutle so however.

How about you explain what those angles are, and show that the model fits the data better than other models? (because science)

 

Maybe you could start with explaining how ignoring the ocean in a climate model makes for better predictions.

[Wild Cobra]

 

 

I'll make this simple. Your paper does not meet the minimum standard for scientific credibility. How much more clear does it need to be?

 

I would say yes. More so than ambigous works that show far less of the methodology. The sting done with vanity publications showed 18% of them were credible. Unless you have solid facts that this should be included in the 82%, then don't even go there.

 

Facts make statistics, statistics do not make facts.

[swansont]

 

I would say yes. More so than ambigous works that show far less of the methodology. The sting done with vanity publications showed 18% of them were credible. Unless you have solid facts that this should be included in the 82%, then don't even go there.

 

Facts make statistics, statistics do not make facts.

 

The burden of proof is on you, since you offered it up. Perhaps you could show us where the model has been compared to empirical data, confirming its accuracy?

[John Cuthber]

 

I would say yes. More so than ambigous works that show far less of the methodology. The sting done with vanity publications showed 18% of them were credible. Unless you have solid facts that this should be included in the 82%, then don't even go there.

 

Facts make statistics, statistics do not make facts.

So, even though only 1 in 5 or so is right, you believe this one, in spite of having no direct evidence for that belief.

 

I have a suggestion- avoid bookmakers.

[Wild Cobra]

 

The burden of proof is on you, since you offered it up. Perhaps you could show us where the model has been compared to empirical data, confirming its accuracy?

 

Burden of proof for what? What have I said that requires proof? His are calculations are from known spectral sets.

 

It is laughable that you guys will go to such lengths to discredit a paper. This reminds me of a political race, and you are using dirty tricks like politiocians use.

 

You appear to de in denial of real science, over the same politics.

 

You are wasting everyone's times when focusing on the linage of a scientific thought reather than its merit.

[swansont]

Burden of proof for what? What have I said that requires proof?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-18#entry833127

 

and of course this paper under discussion, which you offered up to support that. And I think the only thing you've offered up.

 

His are calculations are from known spectral sets.

 

Which is only part of the model. Which has not been tested to see if it properly predicts temperature. (psst. That's an actual science issue)

 

It is laughable that you guys will go to such lengths to discredit a paper. This reminds me of a political race, and you are using dirty tricks like politiocians use.

 

You appear to de in denial of real science, over the same politics.

 

You are wasting everyone's times when focusing on the linage of a scientific thought reather than its merit.

More zero-science-content distraction.

 

Since when does asking for a model to be compared to empirical data count as focusing on "linage"[sic]? Since when is that politics?

[John Cuthber]

 

Burden of proof for what? What have I said that requires proof? His are calculations are from known spectral sets.

 

It is laughable that you guys will go to such lengths to discredit a paper. This reminds me of a political race, and you are using dirty tricks like politiocians use.

 

You appear to de in denial of real science, over the same politics.

 

You are wasting everyone's times when focusing on the linage of a scientific thought reather than its merit.

How much of a length do I have to go to in order to discredit something which, even the guy who cited it accepts that there's no more reason to believe it than, for example, some teenager's blog?

[Wild Cobra]

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/page-18#entry833127

 

and of course this paper under discussion, which you offered up to support that. And I think the only thing you've offered up.

 

 

Which is only part of the model. Which has not been tested to see if it properly predicts temperature. (psst. That's an actual science issue)

 

More zero-science-content distraction.

 

Since when does asking for a model to be compared to empirical data count as focusing on "linage"[sic]? Since when is that politics?

 

How about applying your side to the same standards before asking me to prove my opinion, from a thread, asking why we are skeptics.

 

That is a lame request you have.

 

As for other models...

 

When around 95% of the models from the consensus crowd fail after a few years, shouldn't you be coming down on them instead?

 

I continue to see people on the consensus side only attacking the messengers when it disagrees with their beliefs set in faith. You aren't practicing science when you do this, you are the true form of a denier when you do this. How about attacking the science of the article instead of looking like a religious zealot? You need to understand such works yourself and use your own mind to decide with instead of appealing to the authority of the consensus.

 

I'm pretty sure I elaborated in one thread here about how the accepted average of various solar studies showing a significant increase in TSI since 1700. These account for more than half the warming. To account for only the 0.12 W/m^2 as laid out in the IPCC AR4, they completely ignore the indirect feedbacks caused by the increased solar, and in the AR5, the numbers are reduced yet again but using a solar cycle minimum instead of an 11 year average. If you have followed the IPCC reports without blinders, you will see they keep shifting values as needed to show CO2 as primary.

 

If you have followed the source material of any study quantifying CO2 sensitivity used by the IPCC and others, you will see it is outdated and laughable the way they did these studies.

 

I can only lead you guys to water. I cannot make you drink it. It is up to you, and I am not going to go out of my was with a crowd that uses unethical tactics that are not part of science.

 

My God. Dismissing papers because of the publisher rather than its stand alone merit? Just how elitist are you? You need to understand the material. This tells me you are accepting other material without merit, other than it is by the right people… Appealing to authority…

 

Misunderstanding the actual science behind terms like RE (Radiative Effieciency) and GWP (Greenhouse Warming Potential)? I'm not even going to bother when you all fail to understand some of the simplest deceptions used by the IPCC. I have explained these over and over, and I'm getting tired of it. Can you, in your own words, describe what RE and GWP are? Not what the IPCC implies them to be, but what they really are?

 

Until you can explain such things to the rest of us, don't expect me to go too far in answering stupid questions because all I see are strawmen and other unethical tactics used by your side. I’m getting infuriated.

 

I am getting infuriated with a forum called “Science Forum” when everyone here appears to only understand 6^th grade science.

How much of a length do I have to go to in order to discredit something which, even the guy who cited it accepts that there's no more reason to believe it than, for example, some teenager's blog?

 

To discredit? 100%. Absolutely beyond doubt, because the truth can be in the outlier of statistics. Facts make statistics and statistics do not make facts. Why do you deny real science by not understanding such truths?

 

Again, you change my argument to suit what you consider a winning anwser for you. I find this rather unethical.

 

I am only saying do not dismiss the material for the reasons you do. Instead, try to read and understand what he is dong and saying.

 

You are denying what might be a very good insight to CO2 forcing.

 

Over and over, I see the people who appeal to the authority of the IPCC, as the deniers. Deniers of real science.

[Willie71]

How about applying your side to the same standards before asking me to prove my opinion, from a thread, asking why we are skeptics.

 

That is a lame request you have.

 

As for other models...

 

When around 95% of the models from the consensus crowd fail after a few years, shouldn't you be coming down on them instead?

I am unaware of models failing, unless you are reporting the skeptical stance that any prediction that is not 100% accurate is a failure. Predictions are probabilities, and as new information becomes available, the predictive ability improves.

I continue to see people on the consensus side only attacking the messengers when it disagrees with their beliefs set in faith. You aren't practicing science when you do this, you are the true form of a denier when you do this. How about attacking the science of the article instead of looking like a religious zealot? You need to understand such works yourself and use your own mind to decide with instead of appealing to the authority of the consensus.

 

No faith. There ia a peer review process, that while not perfect, is a process to look at methodology, data used, and quality of the discussion/conclusion. Anyone who equates fait with the peer review process is unaware of the definition of either or both of those terms.

 

I'm pretty sure I elaborated in one thread here about how the accepted average of various solar studies showing a significant increase in TSI since 1700. These account for more than half the warming. To account for only the 0.12 W/m^2 as laid out in the IPCC AR4, they completely ignore the indirect feedbacks caused by the increased solar, and in the AR5, the numbers are reduced yet again but using a solar cycle minimum instead of an 11 year average. If you have followed the IPCC reports without blinders, you will see they keep shifting values as needed to show CO2 as primary.

 

CO2 is not the largest climate driver. The sun is, of course. But the sun's changes are not responsible for the rapid changes we are seeing now. CO2 is responsible for changes in single digits, where the different temperature between the planets in the solar system are evidence of the sun's influence. Look at Mars or Venus, compared to earth. That is not the magnitude of the differences that are seen.

If you have followed the source material of any study quantifying CO2 sensitivity used by the IPCC and others, you will see it is outdated and laughable the way they did these studies.

 

I can only lead you guys to water. I cannot make you drink it. It is up to you, and I am not going to go out of my was with a crowd that uses unethical tactics that are not part of science.

 

My God. Dismissing papers because of the publisher rather than its stand alone merit? Just how elitist are you? You need to understand the material. This tells me you are accepting other material without merit, other than it is by the right people… Appealing to authority…

 

I have read many of the papers included in the IPCC reports, and ther only way these are not valid is if a skeptic tries to poke holes in minor details to create doubt. The claims of corruption, climategate, a worldwide conspiracy to increase taxes etc, are talking head nonsense. I have been reviewing mental health journals for 20+ years as part of my job, and I can tell quite quickly whether something is well done, or has an agenda. That skill translates to looking at the structure of other papers (yes I am univerity trained in the multiple research designs, what they can and cannot answer, and how specific/general the study is intended to be) are relevant in all science fields. I have not seen a single skeptic paper with sound design or conclusion in the 10 years I have been following this topic. I have seen a few peer reviewed papers that weren't the best, but even the worst of these exceed the methodology and conclusions of the skeptic papers.

 

Misunderstanding the actual science behind terms like RE (Radiative Effieciency) and GWP (Greenhouse Warming Potential)? I'm not even going to bother when you all fail to understand some of the simplest deceptions used by the IPCC. I have explained these over and over, and I'm getting tired of it. Can you, in your own words, describe what RE and GWP are? Not what the IPCC implies them to be, but what they really are?

 

The IPCC reports show several principles, what history has shown, what trends are probable, what trends are possible, and makes hypothesis of what is most likely. Predicting tippiong points is difficult in a dynamic system, so we have to look at possibilities and probabilities. Whether the surface temperature changes at the low end of the possible rate compared to previous predictions compared to possible other ranges does not dismiss the fact that the earth temperature is changing. As we learn how the earth absorbs heat through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land mass, we will continually improve the predictive ability.,

Until you can explain such things to the rest of us, don't expect me to go too far in answering stupid questions because all I see are strawmen and other unethical tactics used by your side. I’m getting infuriated.

 

I am getting infuriated with a forum called “Science Forum” when everyone here appears to only understand 6^th grade science.

 

Pot/kettle argument. No reponse.

 

To discredit? 100%. Absolutely beyond doubt, because the truth can be in the outlier of statistics. Facts make statistics and statistics do not make facts. Why do you deny real science by not understanding such truths?

 

Again, you change my argument to suit what you consider a winning anwser for you. I find this rather unethical.

 

I am only saying do not dismiss the material for the reasons you do. Instead, try to read and understand what he is dong and saying.

 

You are denying what might be a very good insight to CO2 forcing.

 

Over and over, I see the people who appeal to the authority of the IPCC, as the deniers. Deniers of real science.

 

There is a minimum standard. Its possible that work outside of this standard might have some truth or good insight to it, so if it does, the peer review process will tease that out. Not going through that process makes one suspicious, immediately. If the researcher chooses not to publish in respected journals, there is a reason. Real science means peer review, repeatability, being open to all data. Have any of the "real scientists" denied that the rate of atmospheric warming is on the low end of the predictions over the past 10 years? That's what the data says. Scientists ask why, and look for answers to that question.

[Wild Cobra]

Yawn.

 

That's to your response Willie.

 

Can you explain in your own words what RE and GWP actually are vs. what they imply?

 

If not, don't expect more from me than getting bored with the parroting of dogma.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

I am getting infuriated with a forum called “Science Forum” when everyone here appears to only understand 6^th grade science.

 

To discredit? 100%. Absolutely beyond doubt, because the truth can be in the outlier of statistics. Facts make statistics and statistics do not make facts. Why do you deny real science by not understanding such truths?

 

Again, you change my argument to suit what you consider a winning anwser for you. I find this rather unethical.

 

 

It may seem that way to you, but not to others.

If you read a paper in the "journal of made up stuff" (Guaranteed 99.9% dross) would you really believe it? (especially when someone points out that it's a climate model that forgets the effects of the oceans)

 

There is nothing unethical in pointing out that someone's argument is wrong on a discussion forum; that's the point of discussion.

(There is something unethical about falsely accusing others of unethical behaviour)