Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[CoolSceptic]

Umm you do realize none of those people have any background in climate since right?

Harry Lins has a PhD in climatology. So you're wrong straight out of the box. And since hydrology is a critically important component of climate (unless you want to bin the water vapour feedback?), hydrology is rather important to AGW.

You also realize only one of them, Koutsoyiannis, has even attempted to write a paper in any way connected to climate science

So Lins PhD in climatology didn't involve writing a paper on climate science? Cohn and Lins "Naturally Trendy" has nothing to do with climate science? Are you really, really sure Mandelbrot never wrote anything about climate science? (Hint: Mandelbrot and Wallis).

OK, we're past "wrong" and into "not even wrong" here.

and that paper couldn’t get published in a climate related journal was broadly rejected as badly written and irrelevant? The other three are simply you trying to make a false argument from authority, as they have never said anything to indicate they support your position.

LOL, given you can't even find their papers, this is pretty embarrassing from your perspective.

Now since you are telling us Koutsoyiannis is such a wonderfull scientist, lets look at his publication record.

Koutsoyiannis

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...nis"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Not bad, but hardly spectacular.

Oh right, you judge the quality of a scientist's work on his publication record, which must be "spectacular" as opposed to "not bad".

And there is me, judging it by looking at the science they do, taking time to understand it. How ridiculous.

More papers, more citations and some of the highest impact journals. Furthermore extensive citations directly relating to climate science and the math behind it. (he is a mathematician, FYI)

He's a mathematician? So not a climate scientist then? (LOL, that's sarcasm before you have a fit). So what? Why are you more interested in counting citations than understanding the science? Oh wait, I know the answer to that already.

Again “good science” is not you going out and finding someone who agrees with out and them promoting them as important authorities. (not that you are even spending much time to see if they actually agree with you)

LOL. Seriously, no. Good science is understanding the arguments put forward. Bad science is counting citations on google scholar and using that as authority. Mind you, Mandelbrot's paper on the Hurst phenomenon has something like 1900 citations. How does that stack up in your clapometer?

as per my links above the realclimate contributor is far more impressive then the person you are linking to. More importantly he has actuly worked in the field he is commenting on.

So tell me again, how does "impressiveness" fit into megalodon's disproving hypotheses?

Seriously, the only thing that I can garner from your entire post here is that your "impressiveness" has just gone negative.

 

[mythstifieD]

You're as much of a psychic as you are insightful and interesting.

Let us know when you have anything but stupidity to contribute...

Ahem, don't mind me, I'm just stumbling into the room and overheard a bit of a cat fight here.

Why don't you lay off the Ad Hominems, Megalodon? Right or wrong it makes you look like a fool and benefits the readers of this forum not one bit. My knowledge of climate science is severely lacking so I don't care much to join the debate, but I must say I find CoolSkeptics responses, right or wrong, to be far more 'useful' than your insults back at him.

 

[Megalodon]

Why don't you lay off the Ad Hominems, Megalodon?

Why don't you show me where I used them?

Right or wrong it makes you look like a fool

As much as not knowing the difference between a ad hom and an insult?

...but I must say I find CoolSkeptics responses, right or wrong, to be far more 'useful' than your insults back at him.

Suit yourself... I suppose that the fact that he doesn't know how a scientific hypothesis is constructed and tested doesn't phase you a bit... After all he is polite, only insulting the whole frickin' field by comparing them to torah diviners. Yup, politeness is the way to sway minds in a scientific discussion...

 

[mythstifieD]

Yeah... the press is the way to go on scientific matters. The same press where you learn that vaccines cause autism, and evolution is just a theory, and a discredited one at that...

Hahaha what newspapers do you read? I highly suggest unsubcribing to them!

Ohhhh, I get it! The Huffington Post is crap, and Fox interviewed a vaccine-skeptic, so therefore every journalist in every media has zero integrity?

Way to generalize an entire industry.

 

[Megalodon]

Ohhhh, I get it! The Huffington Post is crap, and Fox interviewed a vaccine-skeptic, so therefore every journalist in every media has zero integrity?

Way to generalize an entire industry.

See that wooshing over your head? That was my point...

If you want to know about scientific matters, you go to the scientific literature. You do not run with the latest piece you read in the local newspaper.

And you talked about integrity, not me. A journalist can be dead wrong, while reporting in good-faith. But that won't make hir right.

 

[CoolSceptic]

You are not only a liar, but a stupid liar, since anyone can go back and see the posts in question

Anyone can indeed go back and check the posts in question. I don't see any lies in my writings. I may have made a mistake, feel free to point that out to me, but I'm not aware of any at this time.

Reading comprehension is definitly not your thing...

Wow, way to ignore my obvious point. Let's recap here again megalodon. Your first response to me in this little back-and-forth started thus (my emphasis):

Actually, as with any scientific hypothesis, you can't prove AGW. Disproving it is trivial. That's why we say that hypothesis must be falsifiable. Your curious notion of how science works is wrong...

As it stands, there is a huge amount of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis, so if you think there's no scientific reason to think AGW is correct, then you must have spent very little time informing yourself on the matter.

And what, you expected me to roll over and ask you politely for your opinion on the Hurst phenomenon after that little piece of obnoxiousness? Are you for real?

And that's why it's not a scientific hypothesis, and why your example is nothing less than moronic.

It is a hypothesis which can be tested in a scientific experiment. The scientific experiment, when correctly conducted, gave the correct answer, which was that there was no evidence to support the hypothesis.

You may not think much of the hypothesis (I don't either) but that doesn't change the way it is tested, which is a fine example of the scientific method in action.

The correct description for the Torah codes case is that the null hypothesis (no effect) was not rejected. This is a common case in many scientific studies (e.g. medical trials to assess whether drugs have certain side effects), which are exactly analogous, as is testing whether an increase in global temperature is statistically significant against natural variability.

You use that example because you have absolutely no clue how hypothesis testing works in science. For something to be considered a scientific hypothesis it needs to be falsifiable. You have to have a way to disprove it. You have it with AGW.

I use that example because we're on JREF and many people will be aware of it. I could use some obscure medical trial, but where's the fun in that?

"AGW" isn't a testable hypothesis, any more than "evolution" isn't a testable hypothesis. It is a theory from which hypotheses can be generated and tested. Ideally, hypotheses which meaningfully distinguish between two interesting possibilities, but it can be anything testable, whether some anonymous poster on the internet declares it "scientific" or not.

Is the Hurst phenomenon hypothesis falsifiable, CoolSceptic?

You seemed to be desperate to profer an opinion on the topic earlier, megalodon. Do you suddenly know nothing about and need me to explain it to you?

 

[CoolSceptic]

After all he is polite, only insulting the whole frickin' field by comparing them to torah diviners.

At no point did I do this. I provided the Torah code case as an example of constructing and testing a hypothesis. It's safe neutral ground that we should be able to agree on.

But your eristical responses suggest to me that finding points of agreement is rather futile.

 

[mythstifieD]

Why don't you show me where I used them?

REALLY??!?! Hmm, ok, I'm bored at work why not...

#243: "That you spew so much stupidity instead of just admitting you were wrong is telling."

#246: "I bet you do, it's stupid enough... Only in a feverish mind unburdened by the harshness of reality...This must be one of the most inane things I've read in this boards...what a maroon (sic, moron?)..."

#249: "Lots to falsify there, and we know you've failed at it for years now..."

#256: "Get help, seriously..."

#258: "They're a waste of time... there are dozens of threads where information is presented time and time again. But they always come back, as if none had happened... lately they even started JAQing off. Like truthers, a waste of time." (this is a general ad hominem to ANYONE who disagrees with you)

#266: "Your lack of comprehension is your problem alone."

#274: "Your comparison between AGW and torah divining is still brutally stupid, and an insult to all scientists that work on the field. You should be embarrassed to make it." (opinion stated as fact in order to discredit someone is another character assassination)

#279: "You are not only a liar, but a stupid liar...Reading comprehension is definitly not your thing...your example is nothing less than moronic.

As much as not knowing the difference between a ad hom and an insult?

Interesting theory there.. there's a difference? By constantly resorting to insults you are trying to discredit the intelligence of the person you are debating against. Ad Hom's are not just "He's a rapist, therefore he's wrong about Global Warming".. You are constantly trying to demean a belittle everyone who disagrees with you. Are you THAT insecure with "the truth"?

Suit yourself... I suppose that the fact that he doesn't know how a scientific hypothesis is constructed and tested doesn't phase you a bit... After all he is polite, only insulting the whole frickin' field by comparing them to torah diviners. Yup, politeness is the way to sway minds in a scientific discussion...

Geez, why are all the AGW I come across such jerks? Why do they all feel this need to bludgeon "the truth" into everyone? You seriously think that is an effective way of debating with someone? I'm of the opinion that someone resorts to insults when they have nothing better as a response, ie. it makes you look like a fool.

 

[mythstifieD]

See that wooshing over your head? That was my point...

If you want to know about scientific matters, you go to the scientific literature. You do not run with the latest piece you read in the local newspaper.

And you talked about integrity, not me. A journalist can be dead wrong, while reporting in good-faith. But that won't make hir right.

Fair enough, Science Journals > Hasty Press Releases/Opinion Pages. Good job, point made. Woo hoo! Lets parday!

Ok, now, back to reality... We rely on the press to give us the skinny on world affairs that are happening NOW. Hence the word "news". It serves a very different role than scientific journals, but that doesn't mean everything the press says should be discounted.

The press said that UEA Emails were leaked, that's not true though because it wasn't in a scientific journal.

Oh, guess what, scientists can be dead wrong too. I'll see you at the top of Mt. Everest in 2036... you bring your shorts and tshirts, i'll bring my parka.

 

[BenBurch]

An Ad Hom. is different from an insult.

An insult; "You are wrong and you are an ass."

An Ad Hom.; "You are an ass and therefore you are wrong."

 

[macdoc]

mythstifieD

Geez, why are all the AGW I come across such jerks? Why do they all feel this need to bludgeon "the truth" into everyone? You seriously think that is an effective way of debating with someone? I'm of the opinion that someone resorts to insults when they have nothing better as a response, ie. it makes you look like a fool.

Because if you haven't figured out AGW by now and you are in a science forum you qualify as a fool....expect appropriate treatment...

even the fossil fuel companies have fessed - up
Yes it's warming
Yes we're primarily responsible
Now we can make money addressing the problem
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2009/04/oil-climate-change/

or did you not get the memo...??

What kind of respect would you expect coming in and questioning evolution????

 

[mythstifieD]

An Ad Hom. is different from an insult.

An insult; "You are wrong and you are an ass."

An Ad Hom.; "You are an ass and therefore you are wrong."

in⋅sult  [v. in-suhlt; n. in-suhlt]
–verb (used with object)
1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.
3. Archaic. to attack; assault.
–verb (used without object)
4. Archaic. to behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually fol. by on, upon, or over).
–noun
5. an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.
6. something having the effect of an affront: That book is an insult to one's intelligence.
7. Medicine/Medical.
a. an injury or trauma.
b. an agent that inflicts this.
8. Archaic. an attack or assault.

ad ho⋅mi⋅nem  [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‑nem, ahd-]
–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

---

Alright, so, an Ad Hominem can use insults to attack an opponents character rather than answering his argument. My apologies, they're not EXACTLY the same, but they're certainly birds of a feather.

Explain to me which of the above definitions are permissible for civilized debate? I hope you say none.

 

[mythstifieD]

mythstifieD


Because if you haven't figured out AGW by now and you are in a science forum you qualify as a fool....expect appropriate treatment...

even the fossil fuel companies have fessed - up
Yes it's warming
Yes we're primarily responsible
Now we can make money addressing the problem
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2009/04/oil-climate-change/

or did you not get the memo...??

What kind of respect would you expect coming in and questioning evolution????

LOL! First off, you sourced a BLOG. Secondly, you sourced a blog. Thirdly, you sourced a blog. How bout I find you some random blog that states that Big Oil is behind the Climate Change industry from the very beginning and any opposition to it was merely drama for the cameras?

We can have a good ole Blog-off!

 

[mythstifieD]

PS. Evolution != Climatology. No biologist is making serious predictions on what the next step in evolution is for particular organisms. They may do this for imaginations sakes, but no scientist will make a clear prediction that "within 20 years, Humans will grow an extra finger due to the growing need to press buttons"

I'm so sick of being insulted and put into the Creationists tent when I talk about global warming issues. How bout you stay on topic and leave the red-herrings to lesser minds?

 

[Megalodon]

REALLY??!?! Hmm, ok, I'm bored at work why not...

Let's do it...

#243: "That you spew so much stupidity instead of just admitting you were wrong is telling."

Insulting statement of fact.

#246: "I bet you do, it's stupid enough... Only in a feverish mind unburdened by the harshness of reality...This must be one of the most inane things I've read in this boards...what a maroon (sic, moron?)..."

All statements of fact, if harshly put... except for the Bugs Bunny insult.

#249: "Lots to falsify there, and we know you've failed at it for years now..."

That is not even an insult... He has failed at it for years now.

#256: "Get help, seriously..."

Condescending, I know, but I do think he needs some help.

#258: "They're a waste of time... there are dozens of threads where information is presented time and time again. But they always come back, as if none had happened... lately they even started JAQing off. Like truthers, a waste of time." (this is a general ad hominem to ANYONE who disagrees with you)

No, that is an opinion... You could argue that I was poisoning the well, but it's definitely not an ad hom.

#266: "Your lack of comprehension is your problem alone."

That is weird... it should read "reading comprehension", and it's not an ad hom.

#274: "Your comparison between AGW and torah divining is still brutally stupid, and an insult to all scientists that work on the field. You should be embarrassed to make it." (opinion stated as fact in order to discredit someone is another character assassination)

No, opinion stated as opinion... I didn't state that his opinion is invalid because he's stupid, but that his opinion is stupid. I stand by it, and have argued it here.

#279: "You are not only a liar, but a stupid liar...Reading comprehension is definitly not your thing...your example is nothing less than moronic.

Statement of fact... Insulting statement of fact... opinion...

Interesting theory there.. there's a difference? By constantly resorting to insults you are trying to discredit the intelligence of the person you are debating against.

No, just calling attention to the stupid arguments they're using. You want me to be polite, don't insist that an hypothesis can be proven but not disproven, after I point that you're wrong.

In the case of mhaze is difficult to be polite, due to the long history of slander that he has...

Ad Hom's are not just "He's a rapist, therefore he's wrong about Global Warming".. You are constantly trying to demean a belittle everyone who disagrees with you. Are you THAT insecure with "the truth"?

There is no "truth" to be known, because we wouldn't know it if we were sitting on it. Only approximations of the truth. And I'm not insecure about our approximations of truth, only frustrated about the constant throwing of sand for political purposes.

Geez, why are all the AGW I come across such jerks?

Because people hate bearers of bad news? Specially when they're right?

Why do they all feel this need to bludgeon "the truth" into everyone?

I have no interest in it, only in correcting blatantly wrong, or false, information.

You seriously think that is an effective way of debating with someone?

No, not really... but as I said, I'm not interested in bludgeoning "the truth" into anyone.

I'm of the opinion that someone resorts to insults when they have nothing better as a response, ie. it makes you look like a fool.

I'm of the opinion that if you think I had nothing but insults you didn't read my posts...

 

[BenBurch]

When somebody posts lies and cites garbage blogs as though they were science, cites papers they do not understand as proof, and slanders people who work in that field, civilized debate is pretty much out the window anyway...

 

[Megalodon]

Fair enough, Science Journals > Hasty Press Releases/Opinion Pages. Good job, point made. Woo hoo! Lets parday!

Drinks all around!!

Ok, now, back to reality... We rely on the press to give us the skinny on world affairs that are happening NOW. Hence the word "news". It serves a very different role than scientific journals, but that doesn't mean everything the press says should be discounted.

Good, then let us know which emails are evidence of scientific fraud! It's a simple challenge. Mhaze now keeps parroting "hide the decline", while knowing full well that the context is in no way damning to the scientists.

Not everything in the press should be discounted, but everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

The press said that UEA Emails were leaked, that's not true though because it wasn't in a scientific journal.

They were stolen, yes. But all the accusations made early on ended up being false. And all the innuendos bared no fruit...

Oh, guess what, scientists can be dead wrong too. I'll see you at the top of Mt. Everest in 2036... you bring your shorts and tshirts, i'll bring my parka.

As you can see in the respective thread, I think that was a major cock-up. But guess what, it was discovered by scientists, not journalists or "sceptics".

 

[Megalodon]

You seemed to be desperate to profer an opinion on the topic earlier, megalodon. Do you suddenly know nothing about and need me to explain it to you?

Is the Hurst phenomenon hypothesis falsifiable, CoolSceptic?

I presented you with multiple ways of falsifying AGW (you know, what you keep saying can't be done). Your turn, show us how you would falsify the Hurst phenomenon hypothesis.

 

[mythstifieD]

No, opinion stated as opinion... I didn't state that his opinion is invalid because he's stupid, but that his opinion is stupid. I stand by it, and have argued it here.

Nice try, I'm not buying it. You were laying on the insults, relentlessly. You think he's stupid, and thus think his opinion is stupid. Evidence? "No, just calling attention to the stupid arguments they're using. You want me to be polite, don't insist that an hypothesis can be proven but not disproven, after I point that you're wrong."

Ok, maybe he does (or doesn't) have a good understanding what a hypothesis is. It's forgivable. It took humanity thousands of years to realize that an experiment is only as good as its hypothesis. I'm getting the impression, though, that because he has an allegedly weaker understanding of the word, he's a fool not worthy of your time, and thus worthy of your insults.

In the case of mhaze is difficult to be polite, due to the long history of slander that he has...

I typically hang out in the CT and 911 rooms (95% as a skeptic opposed to such theories, btw), so I'm not terribly familiar with mhaze. Maybe he's a jerk TOO. But that's pretty childish reasoning, "He's a big jerk, so I can be too!"

There is no "truth" to be known, because we wouldn't know it if we were sitting on it. Only approximations of the truth. And I'm not insecure about our approximations of truth, only frustrated about the constant throwing of sand for political purposes.

I hear that the IPCC exaggerates things for the sake of policy. That if they don't scare the heck out of politicians, they'll never get the policy changed. I'm not claiming this is true or false, but it is what I am hearing lately.

Because people hate bearers of bad news? Specially when they're right?

I LOVE THE TRUTH, good news or bad news. But I hate people who think 'insults' are a debating technique. Grow up.

I'm of the opinion that if you think I had nothing but insults you didn't read my posts...

Maybe I have a hard time reading your points in between all the insults your throwing.

 

[mythstifieD]

When somebody posts lies and cites garbage blogs as though they were science, cites papers they do not understand as proof, and slanders people who work in that field, civilized debate is pretty much out the window anyway...

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the UEA team, either.