How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by David Rodale
no ocean warming, no global warming.​

Would you care to post a primary reference for either assertion?

It is not obvious?

Say you have a glass of ice cubes and water, does it cool the air or does the air heat the water?

 

[David Rodale]

Would you care to post a primary reference for either assertion?

Not really.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I have mentioned Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre) a few times as being one of very few "sceptic" blogs worth bothering with. Capel Dodger has said that McIntyre is "still a weasel*, though", and I'd like to relate a little story.

CapelDodger? Ad hom? Never!

Last year McIntyre defended TGGWS against criticism from Bob Ward

Hardly "defended" - McIntyre was quite critical of TGGWS. What he was more critical of was the way in which climate scientists suddenly developed a need to fact check in a way they had never bothered on their own data. I'm aware that the pro-AGWers tried to distort this into "support" or "defence" of TGGWS as you are doing now, but this seems to me to be a mischaracterisation of Steve's position.

On the specific thread, the quote from Bob Ward was quite clear: "graph does not correspond to any figure ... that has been published by NASA", your point (#153 I think?) twists this to be current, which you achieve by using a different quote. The specific sentence that McIntyre is criticising does not read as being "current" in any way, shape or form. So your defence (that a different quote within a long letter was sufficiently ambiguous) was a strawman, clearly pointed out by Steve in the preceding posts. The fact there was an ambiguous sentence in the same letter that could be interpreted either way does not overturn the erroneous and unambiguous statements made in the letter and elsewhere. Perhaps after pointing this out to you more than once he began to conclude you were never going to understand? I have to admit I get pretty tired of having to explain basic points to people over and over again.

Mind you, RMS spending lots of time busily pointing out the errors of others whilst sweeping its own errors under the carpet... I guess it's all part of human nature.

 

[mhaze]

dup

 

[TrueSceptic]

CapelDodger? Ad hom? Never!

Not an ad hom, just a simple insult. There's a difference.

Hardly "defended" - McIntyre was quite critical of TGGWS. What he was more critical of was the way in which climate scientists suddenly developed a need to fact check in a way they had never bothered on their own data. I'm aware that the pro-AGWers tried to distort this into "support" or "defence" of TGGWS as you are doing now, but this seems to me to be a mischaracterisation of Steve's position.

A is criticised by B. C criticises B. Why would C bother, especially as C was motivated enough to use straw man tactics, if not to defend A?

And where was he quite critical of TGGWS? Show me.

On the specific thread, the quote from Bob Ward was quite clear: "graph does not correspond to any figure ... that has been published by NASA", your point (#153 I think?) twists this to be current, which you achieve by using a different quote. The specific sentence that McIntyre is criticising does not read as being "current" in any way, shape or form. So your defence (that a different quote within a long letter was sufficiently ambiguous) was a strawman, clearly pointed out by Steve in the preceding posts. The fact there was an ambiguous sentence in the same letter that could be interpreted either way does not overturn the erroneous and unambiguous statements made in the letter and elsewhere. Perhaps after pointing this out to you more than once he began to conclude you were never going to understand? I have to admit I get pretty tired of having to explain basic points to people over and over again.

No, you are twisting those quotes and conflating 2 separate points. McIntyre used straw man tactics. I'm tired of explaining stuff like this to people who persist in their delusions in the face of the evidence.

Mind you, RMS spending lots of time busily pointing out the errors of others whilst sweeping its own errors under the carpet... I guess it's all part of human nature.

Will check that tomorrow but I assume it's Pielke?

 

[CoolSceptic]

As I am the poster in question here I would submit that "attacking the IPCC" is a tactic of GWS.

However, whether or not that is a valid criticism is, to be sure, not relevant to TS's OP and for that I apologize. Perhaps that topic is deserving of another thread, but shucks, there are already so many other GW threads that perhaps the best way to proceed is for me to drop my line of questioning and say to CS: "cheers mate; it's been educational and fun, and I'll stop veering off course in TS's thread"

ETA: (P.S. CoolSceptic: That basically means I'm inviting you to have the last word if a) you want it and b) TrueSceptic doesn't mind one more OT post--and if he does, feel free to PM me with the final zinger )

Well, it's a little disappointing that you're pulling out of the debate, but it is your choice. My observations about TrueSceptic's responses to me are really to highlight this individuals personal bias on the subject rather than to ding you for taking the thread OT. (Note the thread premise was inevitably going to lead to these discussions anyway) To round it off, I'd like to highlight your original question, and why I picked up on it:

You made a claim above that I questioned. I am sincerely interested in knowing why GWS are generally dismissive of the IPCC. I hear similar claims frequently, but without attribution.

mhaze kindly sent a link, and I responded with my interpretation that that particular incident had little to no impact on the final report.

Dave or mhaze, do you have anything else to offer to defend the statement that the IPCC's findings were politically manipulated and consisted of cherrypicked data intended to fit an agenda?

I responded to this question because I felt (unlike most questions on this board about AGW) it was pretty clear, focused and addressable. I tried to keep the discussion tight to this question to prevent the debate wandering off into every topic under the sun (which happens so easily).

On reflection, I don't really subscribe to the nuance "politically manipulated". I don't think that is really true. However, the IPCC has a weak process which is susceptible to bias, caused primarily by a weak review process, inevitably presenting simply the views of the most dominant lead author of the chapter. I've provided links to three separate case studies (RPSr, Paul Reiter and Steve McIntyre) who all highlight three separate issues, all of which are slightly different but seem to stem from same issue - the bias and weak review process adopted by the IPCC.

I note you are slightly changing the nuance in your most recent responses (which, of course, you are entitled to do) highlighting the views of large institutions. I have reservations about these as well, but perhaps we'll save that discussion for another time.

 

[CapelDodger]

(You might find some other posts interesting or amusing, like the one saying I'm some sort of sleazy lawyer type. )

Kudos .

*Unfair to weasels. They are tough, courageous little mustalids.

For all we know Steve McIntyre is tough and courageous. It's not as if I called him something rodentine, after all. The metaphorical value of the weasel is in the slinking, and in the twisting and turning.

I'm sure he'd rather be thought of as a ferret but he fails the test, to my mind. Others may think differently.

 

[David Rodale]

Kudos .



For all we know Steve McIntyre is tough and courageous. It's not as if I called him something rodentine, after all. The metaphorical value of the weasel is in the slinking, and in the twisting and turning.

I'm sure he'd rather be thought of as a ferret but he fails the test, to my mind. Others may think differently.

You said nobody cares about CA, is that still your illusion?

 

[CapelDodger]

CapelDodger? Ad hom? Never!

I never use ad hominem. Describe Steve McIntyre as a weasel is disparagement.

Hardly "defended" - McIntyre was quite critical of TGGWS. What he was more critical of was the way in which climate scientists suddenly developed a need to fact check in a way they had never bothered on their own data.

According to Steve McIntyre. Very weaselly.

I'm aware that the pro-AGWers tried to distort this into "support" or "defence" of TGGWS as you are doing now, but this seems to me to be a mischaracterisation of Steve's position.

An outright condemnation would have done the job, not weaselling it into something about climate scientists instead of the Swindlers. But that's what weasels do.

On the specific thread, the quote from Bob Ward was quite clear: "graph does not correspond to any figure ... that has been published by NASA", your point (#153 I think?) twists this to be current, which you achieve by using a different quote. The specific sentence that McIntyre is criticising does not read as being "current" in any way, shape or form. So your defence (that a different quote within a long letter was sufficiently ambiguous) was a strawman, clearly pointed out by Steve in the preceding posts. The fact there was an ambiguous sentence in the same letter that could be interpreted either way does not overturn the erroneous and unambiguous statements made in the letter and elsewhere.

Are you some kind of lawyer?

You've taken the effort to give us your interpretation of the CA thread, unlike mhaze (who mostly just makes demands of others) and I appreciate that. Fortunately we can all go to the original data, but thanks for the effort anyway.

Perhaps after pointing this out to you more than once he began to conclude you were never going to understand? I have to admit I get pretty tired of having to explain basic points to people over and over again.

What you might perhaps consider is that your basic points don't get across because they're bollocks, and people keep telling you so. It could be that your sense of superiority is ill-founded. Just a thought.

Mind you, RMS spending lots of time busily pointing out the errors of others whilst sweeping its own errors under the carpet... I guess it's all part of human nature.

A common GWSceptic trait is trying to change the target of an exchange to one that they prefer. Trying to control the conversation, to keep it in their comfort zone. It doesn't work on TrueSceptic, and it doesn't work on me.

 

[CapelDodger]

You said nobody cares about CA, is that still your illusion?

Some people seem devoted to it, but nobody influential cares. I was probably talking in the context of normal people, not blissed-out groupies.

(That's another example of denigration, and nothing to do with logical fallacy. Just in case I didn't make myself clear earlier in my response to CoolSceptic.)

 

[CoolSceptic]

Not an ad hom, just a simple insult. There's a difference.

True, I didn't check the context, so you win the pedants award, mind you both cases equally tell me more about CapelDodger than Steve McIntyre.

A is criticised by B. C criticises B. Why would C bother, especially as C was motivated enough to use straw man tactics, if not to defend A?

You don't get it do you? B includes 37 professors, many of whom Steve has had direct run-ins with. Generally, Steve's criticisms of the 37 are similar to the type of criticisms the 37 are making of TGGWS. Steve is highlighting the hypocritical nature of the debate. It isn't rocket science.

And where was he quite critical of TGGWS? Show me.

Sure, I'll do your research for you:
Example 1, in which he acknowledges that had RMS made a sensible criticism, rather than their poorly nuanced one, there was scope for an issue, but notes the hypocrisy:

All I’m asking for is consistency in standards for public discourse. If Ward and Risk Management Solutions object to Swindle on the basis that their use of a dated graphic without commentary is misleading, then I’m OK with that precedent. All I’m saying is that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

Example 2, hardly a rousing endorsement of Durkin's work:

I think that most of the Swindle battles are a waste of time because I don’t think that either side has played their cards very well.

With regard to the solar / temperature correlation that was used:

BTW I’m not particularly impressed with this particular correlation anyway, now that I look at it. I don’t think that the Groveman and Landsberg 1979 reconstruction should have been used in 1995.

All of these are showing Steve is far from convinced by TGGWS. (I share this view; TGGWS, like AIT, are propaganda pieces, and of little interest to those who dig deeply into the science) What niggles, understandably from Steve's perspective, is the one-sided fact-checking that is evident in these debates, and the manner in which the climate scientists ignore or defend identical errors from their own side. This is evident throughout Steve's handful of posts on the subject; you'd have to have the blinkers on pretty tight to miss this nuance.

No, you are twisting those quotes and conflating 2 separate points. McIntyre used straw man tactics. I'm tired of explaining stuff like this to people who persist in their delusions in the face of the evidence.

There were three separate quotes. Two were unambiguous and wrong, one was, at best, ambiguous. You argued the ambiguous one could be read either way and ignored the two that were clearly in error. The ambiguous quote cannot be used to defend the unambiguous errors. You even acknowledged the ambiguous point could be read either way in your #152. The presence of the other two quotes mean your interpretation of the ambiguous quote is contradicting the other quotes; Steve's interpretation is consistent.

Will check that tomorrow but I assume it's Pielke?

RPJr this time Try to actually read the points being made though, and remember most arguments are second hand.

 

[CapelDodger]

Will check that tomorrow but I assume it's Pielke?

Good call. It's usually a Pielke these days. Assiduous buggers, but that can only be applauded in someone who's trying to save the world they know and love. The practical impact is still pretty light, though. Science in the wild is one tough environment.

 

[David Rodale]

Some people seem devoted to it, but nobody influential cares. I was probably talking in the context of normal people, not blissed-out groupies.

(That's another example of denigration, and nothing to do with logical fallacy. Just in case I didn't make myself clear earlier in my response to CoolSceptic.)

He testified before Congress and NAS, and is currently shoving what's left of the shaft of the hockey stick up Tamino's posterior end.

Further, he was invited to Georgia Tech recently....by Judith Curry.

Leif Svalgaard is not influential?

And the list goes on. Nobody influential?

Quite obviously you don't read his blog; it wouldn't matter anyway, you wouldn't understand it. But hey, go ahead and give it a try posting, it might manage to stay a few hours before being snipped for being OT.

Heck, even Truesceptic asked Leif Svalgaard (your version of "nobody") some questions. You never know, he may be impressed you think Siberia is warm in January.

 

[CapelDodger]

True, I didn't check the context, so you win the pedants award, mind you both cases equally tell me more about CapelDodger than Steve McIntyre.

Probably not enough to help you, though, and you may well have learnt the wrong lesson.

You don't get it do you? B includes 37 professors, many of whom Steve has had direct run-ins with.

The professors didn't turn on Swindle because they'd had "run-ins" with Steve McIntyre. Steve McIntyre wasn't involved in Swindle. He may think - you may think - that everything is about Steve McIntyre, but it ain't so.

Generally, Steve's criticisms of the 37 are similar to the type of criticisms the 37 are making of TGGWS.

Swindle simply made up twenty years of a graph to make their argument fit. Has McIntyre actually accused any scientist of doing that? McIntyre strikes me as far to weaselly to come out with anything so direct. He prefers to work by innuendo, which is an effective means of communication but can be easily defended by sufficient application of sophistry.

Which, by the way, is what you're engaged in.

Steve is highlighting the hypocritical nature of the debate. It isn't rocket science.

What debate? McIntyre could have condemned Swindle outright, as any right-thinking person would, and we'd never have had this conversation. Instead he wriggles the matter into something that's about him and about climate scientists, not Swindle. You only need to look at its cast-list to see why he prefers that option. Condemn Swindle and you devalue everybody involved. That would cause some ructions in McIntyre's audience, and what is he without an audience? The last thing anyone wants in a small camp is faction-fighting.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
Will check that tomorrow but I assume it's Pielke?​

Good call. It's usually a Pielke these days. Assiduous buggers, but that can only be applauded ....

Some would, uh ,know...

He testified before Congress and NAS, and is currently shoving what's left of the shaft of the hockey stick up Tamino's posterior end. ..... And the list goes on. Nobody influential?

Hockey Stick? Wasn't that some hilarious climate alarmist Sliding Ten Year Schedule of Doom, a late 20th century con that flopped? You mean we can go over to that blog and talk to who guy that exposed this, uh, deceit?

 

[CapelDodger]

He testified before Congress and NAS, and is currently shoving what's left of the shaft of the hockey stick up Tamino's posterior end.

Tamino seems to be the one that's touched a nerve. Testifying before Congress does sound terribly grand, but which committee was it? Novelists have testified before congressional committees, at least one on the subject in hand. That does rather take the shine off it, don't you think?

Further, he was invited to Georgia Tech recently....by Judith Curry.

Sorry, that means nothing to me.

Leif Svalgaard is not influential?

He has credibility, and he's mostly at CA trying to keep it untarnished by loonies and frauds. CA is a major focus of the GWSceptic camp, and all credit to McIntyre for achieving that. He's one heck of a weasel.

The danger of CA isn't to those it attacks, it's to those it endorses.

And the list goes on. Nobody influential?

Show me the influence, then ask me again. McIntyre is a big fish in a small pond.

Quite obviously you don't read his blog; it wouldn't matter anyway, you wouldn't understand it.

Let us know how a sense of superiority works out for you. I understand McIntyre very well.

But hey, go ahead and give it a try posting, it might manage to stay a few hours before being snipped for being OT.

I've posted on ClimateAudit in the past but it was no better (if not worse) than posting in the Politics Forum over here, which I also used to do but don't anymore. There's no way we can discuss GWSceptic behaviour at CA, but we can here.

Heck, even Truesceptic asked Leif Svalgaard (your version of "nobody") some questions. You never know, he may be impressed you think Siberia is warm in January.

Have Diamond's nightmares come true and Svalgaard's been sent to Siberia for dissent? I hadn't heard about that.

 

[Round Robin]

Do you think the recent non-warming (now "slight cooling") of the oceans helps your side?

Well, there's the rub.

I have no side, except that I am on record as having general trust in the scientific method and, therefore, accept that scientific consensus coalesces around ideas that are probably true. I currently think that AGW is probable because the NAS, Royal Society, AAAS, AMS, etc. report that it is probable. If the scientific consensus shifts, well, who am I to argue with the NAS?

"Picking sides" is a poor way to conduct science, I think. But then, I'm not the one conducting the science; I'm a interested spectator--of climate science in process, not a football game.

 

[Round Robin]

Well, it's a little disappointing that you're pulling out of the debate, but it is your choice. [...] I note you are slightly changing the nuance in your most recent responses (which, of course, you are entitled to do) highlighting the views of large institutions. I have reservations about these as well, but perhaps we'll save that discussion for another time.

I'm sure we'll cross paths again... but I warn you, I may actually stay on topic next time!

 

[David Rodale]

Well, there's the rub.

I have no side, except that I am on record as having general trust in the scientific method and, therefore, accept that scientific consensus coalesces around ideas that are probably true. I currently think that AGW is probable because the NAS, Royal Society, AAAS, AMS, etc. report that it is probable. If the scientific consensus shifts, well, who am I to argue with the NAS?

"Picking sides" is a poor way to conduct science, I think. But then, I'm not the one conducting the science; I'm a interested spectator--of climate science in process, not a football game.

You are plainly ignoring the science and looking to an authority figure to think for you. Why does one need to conduct the science to come to an informed conclusion? How many of those board members in those institutions have actually conducted the science?

Your appeal to authority has already designated yourself to which "side" you're on, and there is no science involved in that philosophy.

Can you name the scientific method by which those institutions came to their conclusions? Did they take a vote or something? Did they read a book? Watch a movie? Is it based on faith?

I've asked this question several times before. Do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in? Seems like a simple thing doesn't it? What did the "consensus" say for 60 years?

Sorry, your logic does not compute. The article you posted earlier concerning ocean heat content doesn't even excite a few brain cells of doubt?

 

[mhaze]

You are plainly ignoring the science and looking to an authority figure to think for you. Why does one need to conduct the science to come to an informed conclusion? How many of those board members in those institutions have actually conducted the science?

Your appeal to authority has already designated yourself to which "side" you're on, and there is no science involved in that philosophy.

Can you name the scientific method by which those institutions came to their conclusions? Did they take a vote or something? Did they read a book? Watch a movie? Is it based on faith?

I've asked this question several times before. Do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in? Seems like a simple thing doesn't it? What did the "consensus" say for 60 years?

Sorry, your logic does not compute. The article you posted earlier concerning ocean heat content doesn't even excite a few brain cells of doubt?

But in all fairness, some one who says they look to NAS, IPCC is not the same as someone who says they look to Desmogblog, Mediamatters, Realclimate and other Fenton fronts, Tamino, Deltoid.