Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Halsu]

I've explained numerous times why RealCrapClimate.com and the rest of these warring, agenda driven,politically motivated and biased websites are pseudoscience and how the journals which publish the science aren't (although there are some serious accusations about journals not allowing scientists the equal opportunity to publish)

No, you have not explained anything. You have only stated your opinion, without providing any evidence whatsoever to support it.

Could you please provide at least one example (or prefereably more) of "pseudoscience" on RealClimate, with an explanation / proof why you assert it is pseudoscience rather than just plain old science - without such example(s) this discussion is moot, as you have provided nothing to back up your accusations.

 

[Furcifer]

You seem to be saying that any time you flip a coin more than once and half of the flips don't result in a 50% distribution that you have disproven statistics?

Nonsense. I'm saying the prediction that 5 of 10 times the outcome will be heads is based in theory.

Theories only require a single instance of deviance from projected outcome to be falsified.

Nonsense. If I flip a coin 10 times and it comes out 7H-3T statistical theory has not been "falsified" despite predicting 5T-5H.

perhaps you were thinking of a different meaning for the term theoretical?

Statistics are maths, maths are not considered theoretical knowledge. Abstractions, yes, theoretical, no.

Laughable. Every University in the World offers a course in statistical theory.

wiki: Statistical Theory

Course outline: Stats 210- Statistical Theory, University of Auckland

Mathematics is derived from the Greek word manthanein, "to learn," and deals with the logical reasoning and quantitative calculation of the properties of numbers, shapes, and space resulting in an exact language used to communicate about them.

That's great. That doesn't change the fact that math is a theory, in particular statistical theory which is what we are talking about. Googling something is obviously no substitute for actually attending University.

 

[Furcifer]

No, you have not explained anything. You have only stated your opinion, without providing any evidence whatsoever to support it.

Could you please provide at least one example (or prefereably more) of "pseudoscience" on RealClimate, with an explanation / proof why you assert it is pseudoscience rather than just plain old science - without such example(s) this discussion is moot, as you have provided nothing to back up your accusations.

*sigh

From the wiki article already linked several times:

It becomes pseudoscientific when science cannot be separated from ideology, scientists misrepresents scientific findings to promote or draw attention for publicity, when politicians, journalists and a nations intellectual elite distort the facts of science for short-term political gain,​

First page on on your pseudoscience site:

"Climate cynicism at the Santa Fe conference"

That article has nothing to do with "climate science". It's politically biased, and published purely for political reasons. That's because it's political website masquerading a science site.

Here's an article from a science journal: Rolling stones; fast weathering of olivine in shallow seas for cost-effective CO2 capture and mitigation of global warming and ocean acidification
from the abstract-

Spreading of olivine in the world's 2% most energetic shelf seas can compensate a year's global CO2 emissions and counteract ocean acidification against a price well below that of carbon credits.​

Why aren't the good ol' boys at RealCrapClimate talking about Real Science? Why don't they present the full spectrum of current climate science studies and instead only focus on the most shocking and alarming studies they can find?

Because it's pseudoscience.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Indeed!

My heartfelt and sincere condolences on your loss. All too many of us lose sight of the human face of the tragedies we so often discuss in terms of numbers and facts.

Thank you. Regrettably, many try to do their stage act using victims galore as a part of the stage set.

You seem to be saying that any time you flip a coin more than once and half of the flips don't result in a 50% distribution that you have disproven statistics?

I don't think our friend 3bodyproblem/Furcifer is trying to say that. Look at the structure of her paragraph

Anyone familiar with math will tell you "statistics" are in fact "theoretical knowledge". If you flip a coin 10 times "theoretically" it should come up heads 5 times. Basic math.

It's like a haiku where a non sequitur embodied by a period introduces the next line. Really, take a look at it. An effort is made to make it seems to deal with some propedeutics of science, but like stones in a ford the whole thing is thought to bring her the other side of the creek and the emoticon, and away of at least three situations that made her look bad. One of them started with this quote of hers

Yes, those of us that are familiar with statistical analysis are comfortable calling it an "educated guess".

when she tried to deflect any challenge on her characterization of research and peer review papers where she basically said statistical inference is "educated guesses", a phrase intended for the nuance it has for laymen (I expect new haikus to denied it). Also she used the word "estimate" in a loose statistical sense to quickly change it to the everyday use (she masters that technique and use it along with that way I call her "haikus": one -long-, two -short-, out -shorter-, and, voilà! we are discussing a different subject without you even noticing). An finally she was asked by lomiller to answer coherently and consequently with previous posts of hers.

You can't catch her. It's not a matter that who has backing knowledge but who masters dialectics, and she does!

You may ignore her, but it would be a pity. I prefer to see how the Rolodex comes rolling with the same excuses disproving an AGW: we have seen last days the last remake of "it's not warmer because cold is killing them", the last rehashing of "they conspire to hide it" (data, 'the decline') and once again an attempt to misrepresent the capabilities of science (the aforementioned haikus). Surely other nay-sayers will come soon with some versions of old hits ("thousands of scientists signed the petition" or "it's the sun" or "carbon dioxide is plant food so it isn't it") confirming again that «It's a testament to the robustness of the AGW theory that skeptics can't seem to decide what their objection to it is. If there were a flaw in the theory, then every skeptic would pounce on it and make a consistent argument, rather than the current philosophy which seems to be "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks."»

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...the data wasn't CRU's to release, the national meteorological organizations in each of the individual nations own the rights to that data.

That's the point at issue in the Climate Audit post to which I supplied the link. Please read it.

I don't do blogs, particularly with regards to science. If you would like to restate the information sans the political demagoguery and sticking to verifiable (non-blog) facts and findings, I would be happy to read what you have to say and will respond to it as openly and honestly as I can.

If you "don't do blogs", how do you know that Climate Audit is a "partisan pseudoscience blog"?

The partisan pseudoscience blog you recommend is much more guilty of all the charges you hurl at these researchers than any of the researchers you slander, how do you justify this?

If I have libeled (it's on the net, in test, so it's libel, not slander) Mann and Jones, they can sue the numerous people who have made the same accusations, in print newspapers, books, and blogs. They have not.

 

[Mikemcc]

If you "don't do blogs", how do you know that Climate Audit is a "partisan pseudoscience blog"?If I have libeled (it's on the net, in test, so it's libel, not slander) Mann and Jones, they can sue the numerous people who have made the same accusations, in print newspapers, books, and blogs. They have not.

Maybe they are far more grown up about things like that, unlike Sen Inhofe...

 

[Trakar]

Nonsense. I'm saying the prediction that 5 of 10 times the outcome will be heads is based in theory.

You can make a prediction based upon a statistical analysis of odds, but statistical maths are simply methods of the tabulation and calculation of data and a means of estimating the odds based upon the considered datasets of resolving similar data from similar datasets.

Nonsense. If I flip a coin 10 times and it comes out 7H-3T statistical theory has not been "falsified" despite predicting 5T-5H.

Statistical theory does not make predictions, you make predictions based upon your understandings (or the lack thereof) of the statistical calculations describing the dataset. 1.00 findings are rare in statistical analyses. The odds for instance of an unbiased flip of a coin resulting in 5 heads and 5 tails is only about .176 or roughly 1/6. Now, that is the highest odds configuration for perfectly balanced, and equal, unbiased coin flip datasets.

Laughable. Every University in the World offers a course in statistical theory.

I should hope so.

wiki: Statistical Theory

First sentence - "The theory of statistics provides a basis for the whole range of techniques, in both study design and data analysis, that are used within applications of statistics"
(my bolding)

your "googling" skills are noted

That's great. That doesn't change the fact that math is a theory,
in particular statistical theory which is what we are talking about...

no, there are mathematical theorems which are abstracted logical statements that can be proven or disproven, but the basic processes of mathematics (maths), and statistical maths in particular, is the tabulation, calculation and distinguishment of data elements. Anyone may make predictions based upon their personal skills and understandings (or the lack thereof) of statistical calculation and the various theories of statistical analysis and dataset comparison. But there is a big difference between the process, and the applications to which those processes may be used (or abused).

Googling something is obviously no substitute for actually attending University.

I concur with a .9999 CI

 

[Trakar]

*sigh

From the wiki article already linked several times:

It becomes pseudoscientific when science cannot be separated from ideology, scientists misrepresents scientific findings to promote or draw attention for publicity, when politicians, journalists and a nations intellectual elite distort the facts of science for short-term political gain,​

Normally, I would use this as an example of why one should not rely on wiki as any sort of legitimate reference, but beyond that issue this seems simply another disingenuous cherry picked quote mine example.

More compleat and contextually accurate quote:

...Pseudoscience activities is used recurrently in political, policy-making discourse in allegations of distortion or fabrication of scientific findings to support a political position. The Prince of Wales has accused climate change skeptics of using pseudoscience and persuasion to hinder the world from adopting precautionary principles to avert catastrophic global warming. People have given attention to the climate skeptics and have tried to understand the kind of pseudoscience they are canvassing. But he insisted the "environmental collapse" evidence is already here. Not only in climbing temperatures but the imprint on particular species like honey bees.[77]

It becomes pseudoscientific when science cannot be separated from ideology, scientists misrepresents scientific findings to promote or draw attention for publicity, when politicians, journalists and a nations intellectual elite distort the facts of science for short-term political gain, when powerful individuals in the public conflate causation and cofactors of HIV/AIDS through a mixture of clever wordplay, or when science is being used by the powerful to promote ignorance rather than tackle ignorance. These ideas reduce the authority, value, integrity and independence of science in society.[78]

It is a fact that a large percentage of the population lacks scientific literacy, not adequately understanding scientific principles and methodology. Instead of seeking scientific professionals for expert medical advise, people increasingly put their trust in pseudoscience, with its claims that are not supported and not testable. People who have spent their lives in scientific discovery and medical progress have been drowned out by detractors of all things from evolution to animal models of human biology. The backlash against science threatens to halt progress in combating disease and erodes public support for research and development. The ridicule of researchers has been a tool for political advantage, assisting to the public condemnation of science and medicine.[79]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Political_implications

I would ask you about the seeming disingenuity, but such is rather obvious and the value of clearly demonstrating and exposing such propensities is well worth more than any distraction such entailed.

 

[CapelDodger]

I can't understand why anyone would want to keep weather records secret, confidential, hidden or otherwise try and prevent people from knowing what the weather was. If it really was "teh governments" telling the CRU not to release weather info, that doesn't make any difference. It's still crazy.

The explanation goes back to Thatcher's victory in 1979. A basic Thatcherite tenet was that government functions should be privatised if at all possible, and otherwise much seek out and implement revenue streams. The Met Office was considered for privatisation but the Ministry of Defence put a stop to that idea, so weather data (which does not grow on trees, it costs money to collect it) became a product to be charged for. (The MoD still gets it free, of course.)

It's not secret, you just have to pay to see it. That's "see", not own. Not crazy at all, just Thatcherite. And Reaganite, and the Thatcher/Reagan philosophy in general has been widely dominant since those days. Many things are charged for which you might once have got free.

Had the Met Office been privatised you might grasp this more instinctively. The thing to not is that governments can have property rights too.

As it happens, all the CRU data demanded has now been made available for free, and as expected the demanders have done nothing with it. It was never about the data, it was about making people think there was a conspiracy to hide the real facts, and that AGW is therefore the greatest fraud the world has ever seen. Slimeitgate is all about the same thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Any AGW skeptic who needs a laugh, read McIntyre's latest, "Dr Phil, Confidential Agent, Revisited". Professors Jones and Mann do not act like people who hope to convince with accurate data and honest argument.

They convince scientists. McIntyre convinces people like you.

I'm still trying to figure out how the temperature of a body at a distance r from a heat source of X degrees, dumping heat to a sink of temperature Y degrees, can depend on anything but X, Y, and r. I can't judge the science (I'll leave that to Freeman Dyson), but I can certainly judge the behavior of climate scientists, as revealed in the e-mail release from University of East Anglia.

So you've been convinced there's something pernicious in Slimeitgate. McIntyre is doing his job then.

So what's this body you're talking about? Freeman Dyson's? I hope not : his continued existence remains my best hope of immortality.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's amazing the amount of information that is available if you just ask by mail and show you are not fooling around. The thousands of fellows that swarm in web sites about 'weathergate' could have managed to get all the raw data in a few weeks. But guessing where a good conspiracy may hide is more fun and more adrenalin releasing that being a good boy or girl, asking properly and then doing something with such insipid raw data.

In fact, any intent of reaching the data makes the conspiracy inviable. Not good for the fun!

Conspiracy is the common factor throughout the denier campaign - they knew they'd have to come down to it in the end. From the moment Fred Singer started denying AGW it was clear the interested parties knew there was a problem because real science had told them so. You don't hire in Singer to deny something that honest science can refute.

So science wasn't going to last as a tactic, and events weren't going to be helpful, and what's left? Conspiracy theory. Time does not weather it

Once the contract was signed, Singer and Associates swung into well-oiled action preparing the seed-bed from which the likes of McIntyre and Watts sprang. Singer and the old team (Soon, Baliunas, Lindzen, Spencer) keep the fertiliser coming while new blood (Singer grew up in Mad Men days : PR science is sooooo much more advanced now) honed the original method to unheard of efficiency, even taking over the US Republican party at one gulp. I was impressed.

Monckton was a surprise to everybody, but that's one seriously weird seed, and I wouldn't have missed him for anything.

 

[Trakar]

If you "don't do blogs", how do you know that Climate Audit is a "partisan pseudoscience blog"?

I didn't say that I had never visited nor never read through any blogs. But I do not discuss from, research upon nor reference to blog discussions as though they represent any other than opinion. If you wish to give especial weight to an argument, I am more than willing to read what you have to say and address it with my full attention and consideration. If you are unwilling to restate and discuss this argument on your own, how do expect to be able to answer my questions about it and address any issues I might raise with it? If you can't do this, what is the sense of me going to a blog to read someone else's opinion?

If I have libeled (it's on the net, in test, so it's libel, not slander) Mann and Jones, they can sue the numerous people who have made the same accusations, in print newspapers, books, and blogs. They have not.

The facts support them, that they choose not to pursue legal recourse, does not negate the defamation engaged upon them.

 

[Trakar]

...One of them started with this quote of hers <snip of quote> when she tried to deflect any challenge on her characterization of research and peer review papers where she basically said statistical inference is "educated guesses", a phrase intended for the nuance it has for laymen (I expect new haikus to denied it). Also she used the word "estimate" in a loose statistical sense to quickly change it to the everyday use (she masters that technique and use it along with that way I call her "haikus": one -long-, two -short-, out -shorter-, and, voilà! we are discussing a different subject without you even noticing)...

Oh, I noticed what was going on with the footloose shifting and dancing. I was actualy okay with the "statistical inference"~"educated guesses"/estimate comparisons, most applications of statistics to projections of complex system datasets are closely related to the technical sense of educated guesses (aka "hypotheses"). My exception is based almost exclusively on the distinction between process tools (maths/statistics) from projections and applications utilizing those process tools as part of their evaluations and considerations. The problem, like many, is the confusing terminologies used in common language. We call researchers who apply the tools of maths and physics to flight "Aeronautical Engineers," and researchers who apply the tools of math and physics to the spanning of rivers "Bridge Engineers" but we call researchers who apply maths to analyzing science or economics or gambling at poker "Statisticians."

 

[Furcifer]

You can make a prediction based upon a statistical analysis of odds, but statistical maths are simply methods of the tabulation and calculation of data and a means of estimating the odds based upon the considered datasets of resolving similar data from similar datasets.

So?

Statistical theory does not make predictions, you make predictions based upon your understandings (or the lack thereof) of the statistical calculations describing the dataset.

Nonsensical sophistry. It should go without saying math doesn't make predictions, but the person doing the math makes predictions based on the math.

1.00 findings are rare in statistical analyses. The odds for instance of an unbiased flip of a coin resulting in 5 heads and 5 tails is only about .176 or roughly 1/6. Now, that is the highest odds configuration for perfectly balanced, and equal, unbiased coin flip datasets.

Dodge noted.

First sentence - "The theory of statistics provides a basis for the whole range of techniques, in both study design and data analysis, that are used within applications of statistics"
(my bolding)

Indeed, it says nothing about "abstractions". You're back peddling.

no, there are mathematical theorems which are abstracted logical statements that can be proven or disproven, but the basic processes of mathematics (maths), and statistical maths in particular, is the tabulation, calculation and distinguishment of data elements. Anyone may make predictions based upon their personal skills and understandings (or the lack thereof) of statistical calculation and the various theories of statistical analysis and dataset comparison. But there is a big difference between the process, and the applications to which those processes may be used (or abused).

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that climate science and temperature reconstructions are estimated guesses. None.

Climate science is an educated guess and stats is a theory. All the hand waving and sophistry in the World will not change that.

 

[Furcifer]

I don't think our friend 3bodyproblem/Furcifer is trying to say that. Look at the structure of her paragraph

​

Correct.

​

It's like a haiku where a non sequitur embodied by a period introduces the next line. Really, take a look at it. An effort is made to make it seems to deal with some propedeutics of science, but like stones in a ford the whole thing is thought to bring her the other side of the creek and the emoticon, and away of at least three situations that made her look bad. One of them started with this quote of hers

​

when she tried to deflect any challenge on her characterization of research and peer review papers where she basically said statistical inference is "educated guesses", a phrase intended for the nuance it has for laymen (I expect new haikus to denied it). Also she used the word "estimate" in a loose statistical sense to quickly change it to the everyday use (she masters that technique and use it along with that way I call her "haikus": one -long-, two -short-, out -shorter-, and, voilà! we are discussing a different subject without you even noticing). An finally she was asked by lomiller to answer coherently and consequently with previous posts of hers.

This makes no sense as written.

You can't catch her. It's not a matter that who has backing knowledge but who masters dialectics, and she does!

I may have more formal training in the English language than most people but I was unaware it was that apparent.

You may ignore her, but it would be a pity. I prefer to see how the Rolodex comes rolling with the same excuses disproving an AGW: we have seen last days the last remake of "it's not warmer because cold is killing them", the last rehashing of "they conspire to hide it" (data, 'the decline') and once again an attempt to misrepresent the capabilities of science (the aforementioned haikus).

This is a strawman and a lie. I made no reference to "the decline" or hiding it or "cold is killing them". I really have no idea what you're going on about.

Surely other nay-sayers will come soon with some versions of old hits ("thousands of scientists signed the petition" or "it's the sun" or "carbon dioxide is plant food so it isn't it") confirming again that «It's a testament to the robustness of the AGW theory that skeptics can't seem to decide what their objection to it is. If there were a flaw in the theory, then every skeptic would pounce on it and make a consistent argument, rather than the current philosophy which seems to be "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks."»

The robustness of AGW theory? What does that mean? It sounds like a line. Could you summarize "AGW theory" for me in a few lines and give examples of it's "robustness"? I believe you've confused AGW with climate sensitivity, a common mistake, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

I'm quite certain this is no more than rhetoric, but I urge you to state your case as clearly and concisely as possible for examination.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Anyone familiar with math will tell you "statistics" are in fact "theoretical knowledge". If you flip a coin 10 times "theoretically" it should come up heads 5 times. Basic math.

No, that's bogus math. Statistics makes no such prediction.

Nonsense. I'm saying the prediction that 5 of 10 times the outcome will be heads is based in theory.

You're wrong.

The expected value^WP is 5, but that does not mean "it should come up heads 5 times". It doesn't even mean 5 is the most likely number of heads, although that happens to be true in this example. What it does mean is that, if you repeat this experiment infinitely many times while keeping track of the average number of heads per 10-flip experiment, that running average is extremely likely to converge to 5.

Googling something is obviously no substitute for actually attending University.

Evidently.

The odds for instance of an unbiased flip of a coin resulting in 5 heads and 5 tails is only about .176 or roughly 1/6. Now, that is the highest odds configuration for perfectly balanced, and equal, unbiased coin flip datasets.

No, the probability of getting exactly 5 heads out of 10 flips of a fair coin is

[latex]
\[
\frac{10 !}{5 ! \times 5 ! \times 2^{10}} = \frac{63}{256} \doteq .246
\]
[/latex]​

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I didn't say that I had never visited nor never read through any blogs. But I do not discuss from, research upon nor reference to blog discussions as though they represent any other than opinion. If you wish to give especial weight to an argument, I am more than willing to read what you have to say and address it with my full attention and consideration. If you are unwilling to restate and discuss this argument on your own, how do expect to be able to answer my questions about it and address any issues I might raise with it? If you can't do this, what is the sense of me going to a blog to read someone else's opinion?

It saves me the time of rephrasing the argument. Plus, there's not much opinion in that post; it's a historical summation.

The facts support them, that they choose not to pursue legal recourse, does not negate the defamation engaged upon them.

I'd say the facts (revealed emails) support the position that Mann and Jones steered papers to each other for review, prevailed upon journal editors to steer critical papers to insiders (the Hockey team), and used thermometer readings when proxies behaved contrary to temperature readings ("Mike's Nature trick"). I read both Climate Audit and Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog. McIntyre is unfailingly polite. Romm is routinely rude and sarcastic.

 

[lomiller]

I can't understand why anyone would want to keep weather records secret, confidential, hidden or otherwise try and prevent people from knowing what the weather was. If it really was "teh governments" telling the CRU not to release weather info, that doesn't make any difference. It's still crazy.

What exactly do you find difficult to understand about it being illegal publish other peoples copyrighted work on the internet?

 

[Trakar]

...No, the probability of getting exactly 5 heads out of 10 flips of a fair coin is

[latex]
\[
\frac{10 !}{5 ! \times 5 ! \times 2^{10}} = \frac{63}{256} \doteq .246
\]
[/latex]​

Formula seems to be the same one I used, not sure how I got half the value?

Let's see,...yep, works out to 0.246. I should have checked my answer before hitting send, serves me right for rushing through a post where I was pointing out someone's mistake.

I assume you are familiar with using Pascal's triangle to solve these types of coin flip problems as well? It gets awkward with more than a handful of flips but it works beautifully. For ten flips it would yeild 252/1024 (which is four times the factorial result but of course yeilds the same quotient).

 

[Furcifer]

The expected value^WP is 5, but that does not mean "it should come up heads 5 times". It doesn't even mean 5 is the most likely number of heads, although that happens to be true in this example. What it does mean is that, if you repeat this experiment infinitely many times while keeping track of the average number of heads per 10-flip experiment, that running average is extremely likely to converge to 5.

True, I stand corrected. I didn't spend much time figuring out my example because I was talking about "theory" and not teaching probabilities.

Thank you for properly demonstrating the STATISTCAL THEORY which is an educated guess at how many time a head will come up 5 times out of 10 tosses on a fair coin.