GW: Separating facts from fiction

Geckko said:
Your source was simply a press release, nothing more. You then castigated someone else for using a press release as a source
Click to expand...
I find your comments somewhat perplexing.

I'm not the claimant here. That you are nitpicking* one of the 12 or so links I posted to refute the OP, and letting the OP (based on the discredited work of two abject buffoons) slide, is something I simply don't get.

Second, I think you misunderstood...

varwoche said:
You [BobK] have reached an opinion about scientific research based on the subtitle of a press release, and you've posted that opinion on a skeptical forum...?
Click to expand...

I am "castigating" BobK for dismissing the Scripps research based on the subtitle of a press release (which yes, I linked to), not for posting a press release.

* In general, I agree that it's better to use source documents but I sometimes make exceptions here in Politics. Based in part on your input, I may be less inclined in the future.
 
Geckko said:
Say my family (five of us) are thinking of travelling 2 kilometres. We will use more oxygen and hence produce more carbon dioxide by walking than sitting in a car. Wouldn't the relative CO2 impact be the car CO2 emissions less the additonal CO2 emissions associated with 5 people walking (as opposed to being at rest?
Click to expand...


So, you assert that the rate of CO2 creation is irrelevant? Well?
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
It liberates you of the need to debunk their arguments, also. Great job!
Click to expand...

I already posted a link that soundly debunks this guy's nonsense. I also provided his motive for being less than honest. This whole pattern is familiar. It's the Discovery Institute all over again.

That you can't accept the facts is not my problem.
 
varwoche said:
I notice that McIntyre is a statistician.
Click to expand...
Correcting the record...

I have worked in the mineral business for 30 years. For the last 16 years, I have been an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/stevebio.doc
Click to expand...
McIntyre recently worked for CGX Energy, an oil exploration company.
http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf
(2003 annual report, pdf see page 13)

And he is associated with The Marshall Institute, an oil industry lobbying outfit funded in part by Exxon.
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98
 
Orwell said:
Well, as far as I know, the french TGV is an electric train...
Click to expand...

Which is good in France, because they derive so much of their power from nuclear power stations.

In other countries the electricity come from carbon sources.
 
Geckko said:
Which is good in France, because they derive so much of their power from nuclear power stations.

In other countries the electricity come from carbon sources.
Click to expand...

Yes, but my point was that the article you quoted is not very credible: they talk about the French TGV as if it consumed the same fuel as a car or an aircraft. Note that they use the word "fuel", not "energy".
 
varwoche said:
snip...
I am "castigating" BobK for dismissing the Scripps research based on the subtitle of a press release (which yes, I linked to), not for posting a press release.
snip...
Click to expand...
Your imagination is running away with you again. I made no comment on any Scripps subtitle. It was a Woods Hole press release.

Here's my paragraph again.
Just one example from the Woods Hole link posted somewhere previously above. The subheading is 'Study Suggests Climate Models Underestimate Future Warming'
This says to me that they have an indication the climate models might not be right, but they're not at all sure. They're simply putting out a idea for possible futher investigation. An item such as this might be interesting to some, but doesn't qualify as any sort of settled science.
Click to expand...
Seems to me like Woods Hole thinks it's a suggestion about science and it should not be construed as anything known to be scientifically settled.

The point I was trying to make is, not all items put out by prestigious organisations can be used in defense of an argument or taken as entirely factual. Someone thought it was and posted it. Yet it is only a suggestion for futher research. If the person that posted it had read it carefully they would have realized that it doesn't qualify as a defense of an argument. Well, unless the argument was about whether anyone had made such a suggestion.

In other words, if you don't pay attention to the caveats in the document, you're more likely to misinterpret what you're reading.
 
Orwell said:
Yes, but my point was that the article you quoted is not very credible: they talk about the French TGV as if it consumed the same fuel as a car or an aircraft. Note that they use the word "fuel", not "energy".
Click to expand...

I just thought it was an interesting piece of number crunching about taking a car versus walking. I don't know how the train point is relevant.
 
Geckko said:
I just thought it was an interesting piece of number crunching about taking a car versus walking. I don't know how the train point is relevant.
Click to expand...

If such a simple thing is obviously wrong, it kinda makes me question the credibility of the rest...
 
Orwell said:
If such a simple thing is obviously wrong, it kinda makes me question the credibility of the rest...
Click to expand...

I still don't get what is "wrong".

I think I mentioned earlier. I tend to look at the hypothesis, data, results etc. rather than draw some indirect inference about the efficacy of something. In this case I haven't done any due diligence, but as I mentioed it is interesting and to me it doesn't immediately appear to be nonsense. Again, the train has no relevance (in fact I hadn't even seen that reference until you pointed it out:) )

Curious thing though. In your opinion, if someone could find some error in the Origin of Species would that taint the efficacy of Darwin's entire work?
 
Geckko said:
Curious thing though. In your opinion, if someone could find some error in the Origin of Species would that taint the efficacy of Darwin's entire work?
Click to expand...

If Darwin had an history of printing whatever fitted his particular ideology without checking out the facts as known at the time, like the Telegraph has the reputation of doing, it would taint the credibility of Darwin's work. I don't think Darwin would make an error like that train thing: he would have checked it out before putting it to paper. There are quite a few errors in the Origin of the Species, but they're all honest errors that stem from errors in the scientific knowledge of Darwin's time.

By the way, I don't think it's wrong for a newspaper to show its bias. On the contrary, I like it when they make it clear. But that also means that I take what they write with a grain of salt.
 
delphi_ote said:
I already posted a link that soundly debunks this guy's nonsense. I also provided his motive for being less than honest. This whole pattern is familiar. It's the Discovery Institute all over again.

That you can't accept the facts is not my problem.
Click to expand...
And I posted wich points your articles don't address.
One by one.
So please spare me.
 
jj said:
Dishonest reply from Lucifage Rofocale captured.

Wikipedia is a useless reference. It represents the worst of "ad populum". Your "side" attempted to use it as a definitive source.

I have no idea if Orwell used Wiki or not. Rather than dishonestly attempt to hold me responsible for his actions, take it up with him.
Click to expand...
Well, even Orwell said that WP entry was (in)correct. <---Correct
And then he used another WP entry to make a point.
So, if you don't have a relevant point, would you please....?

--- Edited to correct the incorrect
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom