Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[Wangler]

When I tried it from home, it required a $30 download fee, but I could get it from work.

Meh, work almost worked for me, but it didn't work out.

 

[DogB]

See, you conspiracy theorists seize upon any anomaly or imperfection in official pronouncements as some sort of proof of the conspiracy you have dreamed up.

You don’t get away that easy.

You said…

No, science informs policy. And certain people attempt to subvert the truth of science to warp that policy. Its disgusting.

The use of this graph is not merely incompetence. It’s sourced in a real desire to produce a result. Someone went looking for a graph that demonstrated a point. When all they could find was an unreferenced graph thrown together by a wiki contributor they used that. Up to this point we have a spectacular piece of incompetence but nothing of any real import.

Then they chose to add referencing to the graph. They labelled it Source: Hanno 2009

This is a deliberate attempt to deceive. There is no Hanno 2009 in the References at the end of the paper. Not surprisingly as Hanno is the contributor’s first name (Hanno Sandvik) and he produced the graph in 2005.

A blatant lie. A lie designed to give more weight to an argument.

Your statement again…

No, science informs policy. And certain people attempt to subvert the truth of science to warp that policy. Its disgusting.

Are you disgusted yet? You should be.

If course it is no such thing, but merely proof that governments, like Soylent Green, are made of people.

People who, on occasion, lie and distort.

Now you can deny again that you are not maintaining a conspiracy theory, but you aren't fooling anybody but yourself on this one.

An attempt to deceive isn’t per se a conspiracy.

 

[DogB]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328

A beat up, but a very successful one.

I was going to use the quote “Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science” which I read here, in isolation, but then decided it was better to reference it.

It wasn’t my intention to imply anything else. I just think it’s a clever quote.

I now see how the use of the quote could imply something that Dr Wegman never intended. For that I apologise.

To provide some additional balance, this quote comes from the same document.

In the end, it's important not to lose sight of the forest for the trees, where the “forest” refers to the totality of scientific evidence for global warming.

 

[BenBurch]

No, the graph wasn't even grossly incorrect.

Its a simple screw-up you crackpots focus on when you have nothing else of merit in your arguments.

 

[DogB]

No, the graph wasn't even grossly incorrect.

Its a simple screw-up you crackpots focus on when you have nothing else of merit in your arguments.

That's it! Nothing at all on the deliberately deceptive referencing?

Actually I've just realised my flippancy is coming back to bite me. You've resorted to the NO IT ISN'T defence.

 

[DogB]

Actually Ben that might be the best tactic. If the whole Yamal chronology stuff pans out nobody will be talking about this little issue soon.

 

[mhaze]

To quote Richard Smith's discussion of Edward Wegman's presentation at the 2006 Joint Statistical Meetings.

Better,

Cherry Picked Facts + Bad Logic = Belief

Actually Ben that might be the best tactic. If the whole Yamal chronology stuff pans out nobody will be talking about this little issue soon.

Checkmates are possible in science, even of this sort.

That's a good find. Of course I don't think we'll be having a discussion on the Yamal issue here.

Belief would find it troubling.

 

[DogB]

That's a good find. Of course I don't think we'll be having a discussion on the Yamal issue here.

Belief would find it troubling.

Best to let it develop for while I think. To be perfectly honest I'm not certain I believe it myself yet.

Cherry picking on that scale would be breathtaking.