How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[CapelDodger]

Another example of GWS, taken from another thread to one more appropriate. Just follow the quotes and make up your own mind...

A common GWSceptic trait is failure to recognise that sneering sarcasm is not clever, it's not funny, and it's deeply unattractive. People like Slimething do themselves no favours at all.

I, of course, never use sarcasm. I do occasionally use irony, which is, of course, much classier .

 

[CapelDodger]

Recommendation 3. (Wegman Report, Congressional Investigation of Mann).

With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.​

It's not all about Mann. How does McIntyre measure up against the statisticians amongst the et al?

I leave it as your homework assignment to name them.

You do yours first.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/HouseFollowupQuestionsMann31Aug06.pdf

Neither was he qualified nor did he seek the expert consultants or contributors which as you note in many fields is standard practice.

Which you base on one source, Wegman, who was called in as a hit-man by that buffoon Inhofe. Wegman did a damn' poor job. Good enough for GWSceptics, but what isn't when they find it superficially attractive?

"Question No. 2. Dr. Wegman states that paleoclimatologists do not interact with statisticians. Do you have any response to that statement? What steps, if any, is the paleoclimatology field taking to ensure that it is using appropriate statistical methodologies?

Answer:

Unfortunately, Dr. Wegman made this claim without engaging in any effort to ascertain the extent to which climate scientists interact with statisticians. To the contrary, Dr. Wegman simply assumed --- without data, indeed, without any basis at all --- that climate scientists, and paleoclimatologists in particular, do not interact with statisticians.
Dr. Wegman’s accusation could not be further from the truth. The participation of statisticians in climate science has become so routine that there is an entire field of climate research known as “statistical climatology,” which involves the collaboration of large numbers of statisticians and climate scientists. There are even textbooks dedicated
to the study of statistical climatology. In his testimony before the Committee, Dr. Hans Von Storch found it necessary to inform Dr. Wegman of this fact. And Dr. Von Storch should know; he and Dr. Francis Zwiers (a Ph.D. statistician specializing in climate applications) have written one widely used textbook on statistics and its applications to
climate studies. Another statistician, Professor Dan Wilks of Cornell University, has written an additional textbook on statistics and its applications to the atmospheric sciences."

So no Chinese Wall between climate science and statistics. Which is hardly surprising.

Which of course is the reason his papers in question were so thoroughly rebutted by McIntyre.

I think they'd have been rebutted by the statistical climatologists first, if any such rebuttal was to occur. Does McIntyre interact with statistical climatologists, I wonder? I'm not going to leap to the conclusion that he doesn't, obviously, since that would be foolish. I'd be interesting in knowing who marks his homework, though. If you've got anything on that subject, do share.

 

[TrueSceptic]

TrueSceptic, do you not see the irony in this?

I ask only that you read what was said.

It might be difficult, but just observe...

 

[jsfisher]

I ask only that you read what was said.

It might be difficult, but just observe...

That's exactly what I did. I did read, and I did observe. And as did you, I commented on a behavior I found interesting.

I also note that the "It might be difficult" comment from you is a bit of an insult. Not a major one, but an insult nonetheless. From someone who (in another thread) claimed to not be the first to cast an insult, shall a take it as a minor aberration?

 

[mhaze]

It's not all about Mann. How does McIntyre measure up against the statisticians amongst the et al?

I leave it as your homework assignment to name them.

You do yours first.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house...ann31Aug06.pdf

Okay, your turn.

 

[TrueSceptic]

That's exactly what I did. I did read, and I did observe. And as did you, I commented on a behavior I found interesting.

I also note that the "It might be difficult" comment from you is a bit of an insult. Not a major one, but an insult nonetheless. From someone who (in another thread) claimed to not be the first to cast an insult, shall a take it as a minor aberration?

The first insult? Read it again.

Did slimey ever offer us a definition, one that any schoolchild could look up for themselves?

Would not an intelligent put-down have been a simple statement of what science is and why I might be wrong? No effort was made to do that. Why would that be?

I have a very low tolerance of arrogant dogmatic ignoramuses (and I don't care what expertise they claim to have). I have seen all too many of these wherever GW is discussed and it reminds me so much of what we also see in Creationists and paranormal enthusiasts.

 

[jsfisher]

The first insult? Read it again.

Did slimey ever....

The insult in question was directed at me.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The insult in question was directed at me.

I apologise: firstly for saying something late last night when I should've left it until today, and secondly for misreading your later point.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I apologise: firstly for saying something late last night when I should've left it until today, and secondly for misreading your later point.

Hmmm. That reads as if I would still have said the same thing today. I mean that I should not have said it at all. Again, apologies.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I apologise: firstly for saying something late last night when I should've left it until today, and secondly for misreading your later point.

Hmmm. That reads as if I would still have said the same thing today. I mean that I should not have said it at all. Again, apologies.

 

[jsfisher]

Hmmm. That reads as if I would still have said the same thing today. I mean that I should not have said it at all. Again, apologies.

I knew what you meant. You didn't need to explain.

And thank you.

 

[TrueSceptic]

You do yours first.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/HouseFollowupQuestionsMann31Aug06.pdf




Which you base on one source, Wegman, who was called in as a hit-man by that buffoon Inhofe. Wegman did a damn' poor job. Good enough for GWSceptics, but what isn't when they find it superficially attractive?

Wasn't it Joe Barton, not Inhofe?

(Not that the intent was any different.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Wasn't it Joe Barton, not Inhofe?

(Not that the intent was any different.)

Probably my bad . I didn't realise there was more than one. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Congress has always been something of a barm-farm, after all.

 

[CapelDodger]

Okay, your turn.

That's it? Did your dog eat the rest?

 

[mhaze]

Probably my bad . I didn't realise there was more than one. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Congress has always been something of a barm-farm, after all.

Translation: Chatter between comrade Monbiot-ian radical environmentalists over US (conservative) Senators who do not share their views.

 

[mhaze]

That's it? Did your dog eat the rest?

Nope, read it, now its your turn.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Translation: Chatter between comrade Monbiot-ian radical environmentalists over US (conservative) Senators who do not share their views.

Radical environmentalists? You do come out with them, don't you?

Inhofe and Barton are both ultra-conservatives. I'd be amazed if I shared much of their views, especially as Inhofe is a Bible-basher too.

Quite why science has to be so political in the USA, I don't know.

 

[mhaze]

Radical environmentalists? You do come out with them, don't you?

No, I only watch and observe as they come out.... of their closets.

Inhofe and Barton are both ultra-conservatives. I'd be amazed if I shared much of their views, especially as Inhofe is a Bible-basher too.

Is your understanding of the Senator's stands and attitudes on issues as weak as your understanding of relevant terms? Likely.

He is (just one example relevant to AGW) a strong proponent of nuclear energy and building more nuclear power plants. His counterpart on the Democrat side, Boxer, is the opposite.... I'll only note that this factoid I've provided is relevant to the discussion, while your opinion about his religion is not. We have a system of government and elections where people can elect who they choose, and it would appear that the people in Oklahoma feel differently about religion than you do. Of course, as I've noted before, one direction this could lead is into a discussion of the weird and curious religious beliefs of AGW alarmists. I refuse to do that, again because I do not feel it has any relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

Side note on Bibles:
You might have meant to say bible thumper.

 

[Alric]

Considering Inhofe once blamed the weather channel for the vast global warming conspiracy I would say he is at least bonkers, regardless of political affiliation.

 

[mhaze]

Considering Inhofe once blamed the weather channel for the vast global warming conspiracy I would say he is at least bonkers, regardless of political affiliation.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, so they say.

In my opinion, though, if someone was a real Alarmist AGW type, wouldn't it make sense to include Inhofe as a supporter? Pro nuclear, and pro a reasonable approach to "corn ethanol" (but no one listened).

If they had listened to Inhofe, we wouldn't have the political/business mess of corn ethanol production with subsidies in the USA that we have now.

Are there specific bills that in your opinion, Inhofe has argued or voted against that clearly and unambiguously show that he is an enemy to a realistic environmentalism?

I certainly agree, he is an enemy to the likes of Greenpeace and Monbiot. We could use more that rebut or argue against such the likes of those.

Such as the writer of this article.

The environmental movement remains monolithic in its opposition to nuclear energy. Although global warming is the most serious environmental issue facing the world today, and although nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases that cause global warming, green groups remain unalterably opposed to the technology.

Oh.... by the way....Who was it that was bonkers?