How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Nope. CD has shown that Mann had a sort of interest in statistics. Call it a hobby if you like. We're simply looking for professional statisticians here, it's not complicated. People with Certified Degreed Brains, you know the type? Maybe you don't.

Really, this is ridiculous. It's like CD is trying to evidence that Mann had some association with statistics and people who used them professionally. I simply called him on his asserting that there were some in the et. al.

You are welcome to name their names, also. This is done as follows (I have to explain it I guess due to the density of contents of skulls).

"Dr. John Smith is one of the persons in the et. al. of Hansen's paper dated xx-yyyy. Smith graduated with honors from Bimbo College, dissertation was on statistical analysis of yada yada, and his specialty was statistics. Dr. Smith currently for twelve years has worked with Debunkery Foundation, exposing the faults of various schemes alleged to predict the stock market."

(etc, etc. Supports reasonably well that Dr. Smith has degrees in the subject field, has worked in the subject field, and is an experienced professional in said field).

Does that help?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Nope. CD has shown that Mann had a sort of interest in statistics. Call it a hobby if you like. We're simply looking for professional statisticians here, it's not complicated. People with Certified Degreed Brains, you know the type? Maybe you don't.

Really, this is ridiculous. It's like CD is trying to evidence that Mann had some association with statistics and people who used them professionally. I simply called him on his asserting that there were some in the et. al.

You are welcome to name their names, also. This is done as follows (I have to explain it I guess due to the density of contents of skulls).

"Dr. John Smith is one of the persons in the et. al. of Hansen's paper dated xx-yyyy. Smith graduated with honors from Bimbo College, dissertation was on statistical analysis of yada yada, and his specialty was statistics. Dr. Smith currently for twelve years has worked with Debunkery Foundation, exposing the faults of various schemes alleged to predict the stock market."

(etc, etc. Supports reasonably well that Dr. Smith has degrees in the subject field, has worked in the subject field, and is an experienced professional in said field).

Does that help?

Despite reading Mann's replies as cited by CD, you persist in this childish tosh?

 

[mhaze]

Despite reading Mann's replies as cited by CD, you persist in this childish tosh?

The childish tosh perpetuated by CD when he refused to directly answer as to the names of statisticians in the Mann et. al., in a thread not about science in the forum on science? Certainly, since according to CD, statistics is not a science.

 

[David Rodale]

I know what I meant. "Bible basher" is a more common term over here. I think this is because we like alliteration.

Religion might not be directly relevant but there is a strong correlation between right-wing politics and GWS, as there is between right-wing politics and religious fundamentalism. In addition, some of us have noted the similarities between GWS and Creationist tactics.

I think what you said is irrelevant as is usually the case, but since you brought it up:
An Urgent Call to Action: Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation



Maybe you should start a thread "How to be a left-wing bigot".

I've read some on the skeptic side use the exact argument you just used. It is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

 

[mhaze]

I think what you said is irrelevant as is usually the case,...maybe you should start a thread "How to be a left-wing bigot".

This, not that?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I think what you said is irrelevant as is usually the case, but since you brought it up:
An Urgent Call to Action: Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347f4146697545.jpg[/qimg]

So? It does not change the fact that the GWSceptics we see on forums like this are invariably right-wing to a degree that is almost funny.

Maybe you should start a thread "How to be a left-wing bigot".

Sure, I have a strong bias against right-wing anti-science liars. It would work better if you started the thread, though.

I've read some on the skeptic side use the exact argument you just used. It is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

You would know all about those, wouldn't you?

 

[CapelDodger]

The childish tosh perpetuated by CD when he refused to directly answer as to the names of statisticians in the Mann et. al., in a thread not about science in the forum on science?

"Childish" here, "juvenile" there ... who's been getting at you?

The et al that I've been referring to is the climate science community as a whole, which is itself just part of the wider scientific community. Wegman's claim is that there's little or no intercourse between climate science and statistics, when there's an established field known as statistical climatology. It's not a closed order, for some it's a major interest, for others it's a passing interest. It didn't take Wegman to point out that analysing time series has a lot of overlap with statistics.

You keep presenting the scientific world as little secretive enclaves, like the specific et al of Mann et al. What about the pre-publication peer-reviewers - anybody there with some inkling of statistics? You don't know, because their names are secret. Ooh-er. Sounds dodgy, doesn't it?

But what about the real peer-review, the post-publication peer review? Even had Mann been able to avoid any involvement with statistics at all when he used non-centred PCA, and restricted et al to non-stats savvy types, he can't keep the paper secret once it's published, and those with an interest in statistical climatology were all over it.

That's the et al that McIntyre should be measured against. Your apparent belief is that he saw fatal flaws which others didn't, others that are very well qualified to judge. My belief is that he's a supercilious fart.

Certainly, since according to CD, statistics is not a science.

You save these up, don't you? Statistics is scientific, but it is not a science. It's a field of mathematics.

 

[CapelDodger]

You are welcome to name their names, also. This is done as follows (I have to explain it I guess due to the density of contents of skulls).

"Childish" here, "juvenile" there, and this. The gift that keeps on giving.

As has been highlighted previously on this thread, you GWSceptics are so very demanding. You see yourselves as the people that set homework. You're not. Get over it.

I'm not the one making an issue about the et al in Mann et al, you are. You dig them out, look up their biographies, and tell me there's no statistical knowledge in there.

It doesn't matter. Mann loses all of the control you project onto him when the paper is published. That opens it up to the et al I'm referring to. The whole frickin' scientific and statistical worlds (between which there's a great deal of overlap).

Out of all that, who was it rode to your rescue? Steve McIntyre. He landed you a long time ago, didn't he?

 

[Michelle Lyon]

I think skeptics change and contradict themselves and each other, regarding a variety of issues, because they are critical thinkers. They don't actually prescribe to one view, they consider other views as they are presented and if another view is more convincing than the previous one, they may "flip-flop". But it isn't really flip-flopping. It's critical thinking.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think what you said is irrelevant as is usually the case, but since you brought it up:
An Urgent Call to Action: Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347f4146697545.jpg[/URL]

Not all Evangelicals are creationists or fundamentalists, nor are they all right-wing; and your point is anyway? You're all over the place with this.

mhaze and you are leading GWSceptics around here, and you're both pretty right-field. Wouldn't you say? Lucy is explicitly right-wing, Diamond is a raving right-winger, judgement is reserved on Slimething.

Maybe you should start a thread "How to be a left-wing bigot".

Is that what you're calling us these days?

You'll be pleased to hear that nobody's pre-judged you, you've provided plenty of actual you for a reasonable judgement to be made. (You don't come out of it very well, by the way.)

I've read some on the skeptic side use the exact argument you just used. It is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

TrueSceptic made an observation, not an argument. So ... what is it that you've read, and what argument did you read into TrueSceptic's observation?

 

[Round Robin]

Out of all that, who was it rode to your rescue? Steve McIntyre. He landed you a long time ago, didn't he?

I had never heard of Steve McIntyre until he and Phil Plait battled valiantly for top science blog last year. I don't read his blog and no little about him... but I was reading a thread on Richard Dawkins' forum and someone linked to this article in the American Chemical Society's ES&T journal. It discusses the Mann/McIntyre dustup pre-Wegman. The tone is, shall we say, dismissive of McIntyre, for right or for wrong.

I see that the National Research Council of the NAS also published a report of this incident... I will have to read that when time permits.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think skeptics change and contradict themselves and each other, regarding a variety of issues, because they are critical thinkers.

This thread is about one issue - AGW - and a form of pseudo-sceptic, the convinced GWSceptic.

They don't actually prescribe to one view, they consider other views as they are presented and if another view is more convincing than the previous one, they may "flip-flop". But it isn't really flip-flopping. It's critical thinking.

GWSceptics do not flip-flop, they don't budge an inch from their conviction. They are not true sceptics. Sceptics are open to persuasion, those guys ain't, no matter what happens. They are abusing the proud name of "sceptic".

 

[CapelDodger]

I had never heard of Steve McIntyre until he and Phil Plait battled valiantly for top science blog last year. I don't read his blog and no little about him... but I was reading a thread on Richard Dawkins' forum and someone linked to this article in the American Chemical Society's ES&T journal. It discusses the Mann/McIntyre dustup pre-Wegman. The tone is, shall we say, dismissive of McIntyre, for right or for wrong.

I see that the National Research Council of the NAS also published a report of this incident... I will have to read that when time permits.

McIntyre's been a big fish in the shrinking pond for a few years now. He's won the mantle of the late John Daly as lead GWSceptic guru. Unlike Daly, he's not obviously insane. I don't doubt McIntyre's sanity at all. It hasn't been stressed enough yet.

 

[Pipirr]

I had never heard of Steve McIntyre until he and Phil Plait battled valiantly for top science blog last year. I don't read his blog and no little about him... but I was reading a thread on Richard Dawkins' forum and someone linked to this article in the American Chemical Society's ES&T journal. It discusses the Mann/McIntyre dustup pre-Wegman. The tone is, shall we say, dismissive of McIntyre, for right or for wrong.

I see that the National Research Council of the NAS also published a report of this incident... I will have to read that when time permits.

What a soap opera this all is.

I find it useful to imagine what we would have if there were no blogs in the world. On the pro side there's all the peer reviewed literature and the top level review bodies like the joint science academies; and on the other side, there'd be Fred Singer giving the occasional interview on the television.

Imagine, a whole lot less stupidity. Really, a guy with a blog is rather trumped by, say, a National Academy of Sciences. Next to which, the blog posts of Mr McIntyre don't amount to a hill of beans.

I'm sorry, I just don't see why he matters. Not with all that science out there.

 

[Round Robin]

What a soap opera this all is.

I find it useful to imagine what we would have if there were no blogs in the world.

<JohnLennon>
Imagine there's no blogs,
it's easy if you try...
</JohnLennon>

I'm with you there, Pipirr... I hate climate blogs. But I'm not sure I want to imagine no Bad Astronomy, Pharyngula, etc.

 

[Pipirr]

<JohnLennon>
Imagine there's no blogs,
it's easy if you try...
</JohnLennon>

I'm with you there, Pipirr... I hate climate blogs. But I'm not sure I want to imagine no Bad Astronomy, Pharyngula, etc.

No worries, just a thought experiment... plus I doubt it's possible to imagine PZ away. That man has a knack of getting where he isn't wanted.

 

[Alric]

<JohnLennon>
Imagine there's no blogs,
it's easy if you try...
</JohnLennon>

I'm with you there, Pipirr... I hate climate blogs. But I'm not sure I want to imagine no Bad Astronomy, Pharyngula, etc.

The only difference is that the contrarian climate blogs are more effective at bloviation and creating confusion.

 

[a_unique_person]

I had never heard of Steve McIntyre until he and Phil Plait battled valiantly for top science blog last year. I don't read his blog and no little about him... but I was reading a thread on Richard Dawkins' forum and someone linked to this article in the American Chemical Society's ES&T journal. It discusses the Mann/McIntyre dustup pre-Wegman. The tone is, shall we say, dismissive of McIntyre, for right or for wrong.

I see that the National Research Council of the NAS also published a report of this incident... I will have to read that when time permits.

And he's a porn star!

http://wsare.usu.edu/pub/sare2000/041.htm

 

[Alric]

I had never heard of Steve McIntyre until he and Phil Plait battled valiantly for top science blog last year. I don't read his blog and no little about him... but I was reading a thread on Richard Dawkins' forum and someone linked to this article in the American Chemical Society's ES&T journal. It discusses the Mann/McIntyre dustup pre-Wegman. The tone is, shall we say, dismissive of McIntyre, for right or for wrong.

I see that the National Research Council of the NAS also published a report of this incident... I will have to read that when time permits.

These are great links. I have always dismissed McIntyre because of his way to do science seems to be to nitpick irrelevant aspects of important research while doing no new research on his own.

The McIntyre-Inhofe connection and how effective they were in battling the hockey stick idea (at least on mhaze's and DRs brain) is a fascinating story. Its like reading the script for Expelled II.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I think skeptics change and contradict themselves and each other, regarding a variety of issues, because they are critical thinkers. They don't actually prescribe to one view, they consider other views as they are presented and if another view is more convincing than the previous one, they may "flip-flop". But it isn't really flip-flopping. It's critical thinking.

I'm sorry, Michelle, but this doesn't make sense to me. A critical thinker is someone who believes anything and everything, regardess of inconsistency and contradictions? Perhaps you meant "open-minded"?

Remember that Richard Dawkins said
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.