Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

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).

Don't worry about that, that was not the point anyways. We're talking about the method, the exact result is irrelevant.

The method for determining the number of heads or tails in any given number of tosses is based in statistical theory. The "odds" in this case are an "educated guess".

If someone tells you otherwise they are lying to you.

 

[Trakar]

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...

Ah! found it! Things like this nag at me until I resolve them. Apparently, while I was doing much more than I should attempt to do at once, I actually calculated the odds of 10 heads out of 20 flips and then plugged the answer into my post without verifying that the equation matched my post.

20!/(10!10!2^20) = 0.176197

I am noting another curiosity now, but at the least the minor nag-point is resolved, I'll deal with the rest tomorrow, nite all!

 

[Halsu]

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.

Could you please point out what in that text, which is a commentary about a confrence, and in your own words, has nothing to do with climate science....

- makes science and idology unseparable (and/or)
- misrepresents scientific findings to promote or draw attention for publicity (and/or)
- distorts the facts of science for short-term political gain

...because i can not find anything in that article that would fit any of the above??

Now, the article is an Op-Ed, clearly written with a point of view, and as such you may call it biased if you wish. But it is NOT pseudoscience, as it does not make any scientific claims, or claims that could be misunderstood as scientific ones.

So, the conclusion is that you still have not shown any evidence of pseudoscience at RealClimate.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

McIntyre's professional career, what there is left of it, is not the point, what is published and not published on his blog, is the issue...Pseudoscience nonsense is judged by the content, not by the prestige of those presenting it.

On what "pseudoscience" content (please link an example from Climate Audit) do you base your characterization of Climate Audit as a "pseudoscience blog"? I have been reading him since before the first release of the UEA/CRU emails, and I don't see it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

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

That was exactly the subject of the Climate Audit post "Dr Phil, Confidential Agent, Revisited". Please read it. As McIntyre establishes, Phil Jones clearly lied about his reasons for withholding his raw data.

 

[CapelDodger]

The expected value^WP is 5, but that does not mean "it should come up heads 5 times".

Indeed. In fact it's more sensible to expect the result not to be 5. Three times as sensible .

Not everybody has an even basic grasp of probability theory, which is what Las Vegas is built on. That and the fact that so many who don't think they do.

So back to the record-breaking issue. They seem to crop up a lot these days.

 

[CapelDodger]

This makes no sense as written.

It makes complete sense to me.

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

I can promise you it's not.

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.

Talking about you there, not to you. But to clear the air : do you accept that data isn't getting hidden?

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.

Perhaps. Do you agree that there is no "AGW theory"?

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.

In that regard, what case was being made by bringing up dead Amazonian fish?

And since I'm in an asking mood, do you believe that the world of science has been overrun by environmentalists since WW2? LogicFail does, and I'm wondering how representative he is.

 

[Furcifer]

It makes complete sense to me.

Please translate it then.

I can promise you it's not.

Promises are worthless. Evidence?

Talking about you there, not to you. But to clear the air : do you accept that data isn't getting hidden?

I concur with all the of investigations that all identified the need for transparency. To be clear are you denying the need for transparency was not agreed upon by all of the bodies that investigated this "climategate"?

Perhaps. Do you agree that there is no "AGW theory"?

I don't. I believe this is continually being confused with what is essentially "climate sensitivity" or "greenhouse effect".

In that regard, what case was being made by bringing up dead Amazonian fish?

I'm not following that, nor do I intend on going back and trying to figure it out at this point. If it's constructive to the discussion and it's easy enough to summarize please do it in your response.

And since I'm in an asking mood, do you believe that the world of science has been overrun by environmentalists since WW2? LogicFail does, and I'm wondering how representative he is.

If this is alluding to the pseudoscience infiltrating climate science, due primarily to environMENTALists, then it's quite possibly true.

 

[Furcifer]

So, the conclusion is that you still have not shown any evidence of pseudoscience at RealClimate.

Nonsense. You won't find any political ramblings at or in a scientific journal or website.

What makes RealCrapClimate.com pseudoscience is basically everything you won't find in a reputable science journal.

Read the website and ask yourself "Is this science? Would I find any of this in peer reviewed literature? Does this contribute in any way to the scientific understanding of climate science?" If the answer to any of these questions is "No" then it's pseudoscience riding on the coat tails of actual science.

Another example of the pseudoscience going on at these websites is the responses to may of the biased and politically motivated articles. In a reputable scientific publication none of these responses would be allowed. This does not follow the accepted scientific method, and is another key indicator of the pseudoscience prevalent on these websites.

More often than not you will find RealCrapClimate.com cited on the JREF forum instead of the actual journal publication in which the science was published. This is another sign of the pseudoscientific nature on these websites. Clearly the intent is to filter the science and present a distorted view of the actual science in the process.

If you want to understand the current state of climate science, and see what actual scientists are doing in their field, read a journal. Or do some searches using Google scholar. It's essential to read the science firsthand.

 

[Trakar]

On what "pseudoscience" content (please link an example from Climate Audit) do you base your characterization of Climate Audit as a "pseudoscience blog"? I have been reading him since before the first release of the UEA/CRU emails, and I don't see it.

You are pretty well able to pick any post on his board and see, at the most generous, grossly distorted approximations of science, conspiracy theory and or complete whole cloth lies. That you have been reading that political pseudoscience blog for the last couple of years and not noticed any of this, speaks volumes in and of itself. I won't link to specific blog eruptions as that would only serve the purpose of promoting such trash, but I will list several oft repeated and recycled argument themes that commonly reappear ad nauseum on McIntyre's spew site.

Hansen and NASA GISS are liars and involved in a conspiracy

CRU emails reveal Jones lies and conspiracy

Mann and "Hockey stick" lies and conspiracy

All major scientific journals exhibit biased peer-review, indicative of conspiracy

"Skeptics" kept out of IPCC part of conspiracy

Temperature record distorted as part of conspiracy

Gore, Mann and Jones conspire together to distort data

I may have missed one or two minor conspiracy side-trips he is wont to venture upon, but for the most part, the above themes properly characterize the overwhelming majority of the posts Mr McIntyre makes upon his blog.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You are pretty well able to pick any post on his board and see, at the most generous, grossly distorted approximations of science, conspiracy theory and or complete whole cloth lies...

Okay, since there are so many, it should be no problem to link ONE.

Hansen and NASA GISS are liars and involved in a conspiracy

CRU emails reveal Jones lies and conspiracy¹
Mann and "Hockey stick" lies and conspiracy²
All major scientific journals exhibit biased peer-review, indicative of conspiracy³"Skeptics" kept out of IPCC part of conspiracy

Temperature record distorted as part of conspiracy⁴
Gore, Mann and Jones conspire together to distort data⁵
I may have missed one or two minor conspiracy side-trips he is wont to venture upon, but for the most part, the above themes properly characterize the overwhelming majority of the posts Mr McIntyre makes upon his blog.

1. That's pretty well established. It's not libel, slander, or pseudoscience to call Jones a liar.
2. Dunno 'bout Mann lying, but the dubious treatment of tree ring analyses ("hide the decline") used in the hockey stick is pretty well established.
3. Dunno 'bout "all", but see the recent Climate Audit post "Nature and the Inundation Legend".
4. Do you mean the proxy record or the thermometer weather station record? Link, please.
5. This I doubt. Link, please.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You are pretty well able to pick any post on his board and see, at the most generous, grossly distorted approximations of science...

As Trakar observes, since the publication of the leaked emails, Steve McIntyre has had a lot to say about the rationalizations that Jones gave to reject requests for raw data. Whether true or false, libelous or otherwise, that's biography, not science. So, why call Climate Audit "pseudoscience"? Where does McIntyre present a scientific argument that is mistaken? I mean, it's mistaken science to assert that water is HCN, it's mistaken biography to assert that Einstein discovered that water is H₂O. There's a difference.

I won't link to specific blog eruptions as that would only serve the purpose of promoting such trash, but I will list several oft repeated and recycled argument themes that commonly reappear ad nauseum on McIntyre's spew site.

Links would serve the purpose of supporting Trakar's assertions (or not). "Won't" or "can't"?

 

[Mikemcc]

*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.

The 'Climate cynicism at the Santa Fe conference' article was reporting on a meeting of climate deniers, how do you you intend that they report about it. Whenever RC and SkS report on the science, they provide links to the papers so that they may be read as well. Hardly pseudoscience, especially when compared to sites such as WUWT, CA, etc that willfully mis-interpret science papers for a political adgenda.

 

[Trakar]

Okay, since there are so many, it should be no problem to link ONE.

I will not promote a pseudoscience political opinion blog, the vast majority fit easily and within the categories I listed by any objective reading and assessment.

1. That's pretty well established. It's not libel, slander, or pseudoscience to call Jones a liar.
2. Dunno 'bout Mann lying, but the dubious treatment of tree ring analyses ("hide the decline") used in the hockey stick is pretty well established.
3. Dunno 'bout "all", but see the recent Climate Audit post "Nature and the Inundation Legend".
4. Do you mean the proxy record or the thermometer weather station record? Link, please.

What you say is "established," simply is not, at the least, not to any objective measure or assessment. Listing more examples of what I have already properly categorized does not alter or refute those categorizations. McIntyre refutes the accuracy of both the various proxy records and station records asserting collusion and conspiracy as the motivation for perceptions of deliberate misconduct.

 

[Trakar]

As Trakar observes, since the publication of the leaked emails, Steve McIntyre has had a lot to say about the rationalizations that Jones gave to reject requests for raw data. Whether true or false, libelous or otherwise, that's biography, not science. So, why call Climate Audit "pseudoscience"? Where does McIntyre present a scientific argument that is mistaken? I mean, it's mistaken science to assert that water is HCN, it's mistaken biography to assert that Einstein discovered that water is H₂O. There's a difference.

Pseudoscience-

1.A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defi....,cf.osb&fp=c6b28dda42645f86&biw=1024&bih=645

an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Science and Pseudo-Science
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

What Is Pseudoscience?
Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic
By Michael Shermer
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-pseudoscience

Links would serve the purpose of supporting Trakar's assertions (or not). "Won't" or "can't"?

Won't, for exactly the reasons I actually stated. The posts you have linked from that site, in this thread, are representative, and generally do fit within the categorizations and qualifications I have already provided.

If you would like to discuss the scientific content (or what substitutes for such) of any of Stephan McIntyre's blog posts without all of the conspiracy attributions and unsupported editorializing, please feel free to actually discuss the science you feel I am missing or mischaracterizing.

 

[lomiller]

That was exactly the subject of the Climate Audit post "Dr Phil, Confidential Agent, Revisited". Please read it. As McIntyre establishes, Phil Jones clearly lied about his reasons for withholding his raw data.

That this data was not owned by the CRU is am matter of public record. If Climate Audit is saying anything else it's pretty clearly a lie.

Now, once again, what part if it being illegal to publish other peoples data on the internet do you not understand?

 

[lomiller]

1. That's pretty well established. It's not libel, slander, or pseudoscience to call Jones a liar.

Actually it's established that those accusations are untrue. These false allegations have been investigated a half dozen times and rejected every time. This allegation is clealry in the realm of conspiracy theory at this point.

2. Dunno 'bout Mann lying, but the dubious treatment of tree ring analyses ("hide the decline") used in the hockey stick is pretty well established.

Again just the opposite. Mann's results have been confirmed by more than a dozen subsequent peer reviewed papers. This means any claims that Mann's results were not accurate are firmly psudosceince.

3. Dunno 'bout "all", but see the recent Climate Audit post "Nature and the Inundation Legend".

I'm not interested in fixing errors on the internet. If you think that blog article has something substantial to say, digest it and make the argument yourself.

4. Do you mean the proxy record or the thermometer weather station record? Link, please.

He was referring to your instance there is a conspiracy to alter the instrumental temperature record, but it could equally hold for your insistence that the proxy record is subject to some form of conspiracy.

 

[Reality Check]

Note the word "estimate", which is exactly what the proxy reconstructions are.

Proxy reconstructions are calculations of temperature from proxy data.
They are not educated guesses. They do fall in the realm of estimates - like all scientific calculations. The anomalous magnetic dipole moment

(uncertainty of 1 part in 1 billion) is an estimate !

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.

Theoretical knowledge for educated guess is explained in the example:

His educated guess was correct to within 2%, but then, he's been doing this for 10 years and knows what range of values to expect.

i.e. a personal knowledge of the field and what it usually gives.

 

[Reality Check]

Furcifer, please list these "warring, agenda driven, ..." web sites

More nonsense.

Actually it is an observation that you seem to want to put the word Crap into every web site that you talk about. Thus it is likely that if you were to talk abut the Nature web set it would be CrapNature. It also imples that your personal preference for the name of JREF would be CrapJREF or some variation.

And how exactly does this preclude it from being a pseudoscience site?

And how exactly does a web site explaining science using citations to actual scientific papers become a pseudoscience site?

Furcifer, please cite your evidence that Real Climate is a pseudoscience site
(first asked 5th January 2012)

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)

Then you can link to your posts giving the evdence that RealCrapClimate.com (and maybe CrapNature ) are pseudoscience,.

What exactly is the name of the pseudoscience that they are describing?
Is it the Flat Earth theory?

Furcifer,

Please give a list of the "warring, agenda driven,politically motivated and biased websites" and cite your evidence that these web sites are

• warring (and why is that bad?)
• agenda driven (what is the agenda?)
• politically motivated
• biased

There are certainly some web sites on climate change that have the reputation of being "warring, agenda driven,politically motivated and biased", e.g. those run by some biased think tanks.

However calling Real Climate agenda driven, politically motivated and biased without evidence is insulting the climate scientists who write for it.
Ditto for wattsupmybutt.com and socalledskepitcalscience.com (and CrapNature.com ).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That this data was not owned by the CRU is am matter of public record. If Climate Audit is saying anything else it's pretty clearly a lie.
Now, once again, what part if it being illegal to publish other peoples data on the internet do you not understand?

What "public record"? Link? The Climate Audit post addresses this specific issue. What part of "Please read it" do you not understand?