Steven thanks for keeping the facts straight regarding issues with which you are intimately aware. It does help us see who might be blowing smoke and then we can go to the next step– which is to ask why they are.
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by R. Gates
↧
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by curryja
good point, thx
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by popesclimatetheory
The problem is that skeptic scientists do talk to each other and they do try to talk to the consensus scientists but the consensus scientists do only talk to other consensus scientists.
The Climate Change Conference in July had scientists from all over the world but none of the Consensus Scientists attended, not to speak and not even to listen. They don’t discuss and debate with anyone who does disagree. If their Consensus Theory was correct, their Consensus Models would be working and they don’t even want help to figure out what is wrong.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by jhprince2014
JC’s confidence is what drives her detractors to respond, to “control”. It’s refreshing that she has the fortitude and maintains the dignity to keep the subject in focus, not herself.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
steven, lol “Dallas, you must mean dry ice because nothing, nothing at all, happens unless CO2 is responsible.”
Right, where was my head! btw, when “skeptics question the “group think” er.. consensus, good minions always jump in to defend the herd.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-do-alarmists-love-marcott-et-al.html
So I made Marcott specific link with minimal verbiage, just right for their attention spans, just to aggravate them of course. What do ya think?
↧
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Eric
Seems more so that Dr Mann brought new information to the table and the groupthink of deniers has been trying to ostracize Dr Mann for this. Although Dr Mann’s work has been repeatedly shown to be accurate, the groupthink of deniers has been reinforced by their group often enough that they now believe otherwise despite the facts. Brandon, your comment shows the influencing effects of this groupthink.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by popesclimatetheory
The Consensus people don’t consider the opinions of any who disagree, that is how they maintain their 97%
It is getting easier for them to maintain their 97% because they are losing members. Dr Curry is not the only one they have kicked out or who has left.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Eric, Dr. Manns error have been repetedly replicated, that is not the same as repeatedly proved accurate.
Thanks to a lot of statistical mumbo-jumbo, it is easy to keep making the same mistakes using the same methods.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-do-alarmists-love-marcott-et-al.html
If you back away from the statistics, which few people actually understand, you can see that data quality really does count. No matter how much crap you average, it is still just average crap.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by jhprince2014
The “ostracized” and “denier” mention by JC speaks more to the pettiness of group think confidence than JC’s rep.
↧
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas
I’m only smart enough to know that I’ve much to learn.
My point is that there are opportunities to express viewpoints, analysis, alternatives, “skepticism” (sorry ’bout that), abound on tools such as these. From RealClimate to Climate, etc. and in between.
Dr. Curry provided for our consumptions, reasons why good analysis and communication may not be occurring. So why not change the playing field. The same dynamics inherent in the IPCC consensus forming condition apply at “get togethers” of all kinds. Scientists are human too.
We see evidence right here of a tool that functions. Anonymous posting removes need for political/group behavior and this should leave the science. Peer review would be (relatively) immediate, feedback received, and science happens.
So, no, I don’t think the scientists are “talking to each other” at all. I think they’re talking via alternative sources with many external forces around each other and to the public (in some cases).
Picture it. Dr. Curry states her case for 50/50 +/- 30 and goes head to head with the scientists behind the consensus and they work out the details. I think that would be enlightening.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by R. Gates
“The Climate Change Conference in July had scientists from all over the world but none of the Consensus Scientists attended, not to speak and not even to listen.”
—–
If you are referring to the little get together in La Vegas, there are very good reasons why no “consensus” scientists attended:
1. That is a made up derogatory term. There are real scientists and those now practicing pseudoscience. That conference was a celebration of pseudoscience. Real scientists debate anthropogenic climate change every day.
2. If one is late in their career or never had a career in real science they might become interested in pseudoscience, but for a professional scientist, it ends a career– not because of what you start to believe, but why and how.
This is why real scientists stay away from pseudoscience.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Michael
Danny Thomas | November 26, 2014 at 9:28 am |
“Picture it. Dr. Curry states her case for 50/50 +/- 30 and goes head to head with the scientists behind the consensus and they work out the details. I think that would be enlightening”
Could be, but it takes two to tango.
Gavin Schmidt gave a very detailed response to Judith’s position.
Judith responded with hand-waving and snark.
Judith was challenged on this , and she eventually said that she would respond….that was months ago.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas
Popesclimatetheory,
I can see that as they have entire careers and reputations on the line. But a few sneak in to this blog and that blog. If silliness such as posting by those such as I were moded out, the science could play out anonymously. And maybe progress could be had. But I like pipe dreams.
↧
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JCH
And yet, your side cannot write a paper that proves the WMP was warmer than today. Just one simple little paper.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Brandon Shollenberger
Eric, I’d wager you’re incapable of discussing Michael Mann’s work in any technical manner. I doubt you could explain his methodology, what data he used or how they work together to produce the results he got. I doubt this because if you could, you wouldn’t write a comment so silly. Mann did not bring any “new information to the table.” The only things he did that others hadn’t done before him were wrong.
You’re welcome to prove me wrong though. Tell me, exactly what was “new” about Michael Mann’s hockey stick?
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas
R. Gates,
Even you can’t believe what you wrote here.
So are every single one of these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
what you’d classify as psuedo……….scientists?
I respect your passion, but your newly found term is providing damage only to your reputation and is not benefiting your argument. This kind of generalization, if it can’t get passed by me, will certainly not stand analysis of others much more educated.
If you want to put me on the PS list, fine, I’ll agree fully. But not all those whom you perceive as being counter to “the movement” fit the description.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas
I agree fully. It does take two to tango. This goes exactly to the point as this was “dueling blogs” and not the parties communicating directly (unless something of which we’re unaware has taken place). And if personalities, reputations, and politics were removed (as much as humanly possible) the science could prevail.
We all make mistakes, but it’s contrary to human nature to wish to be embarrassed. This topic (climate change) is unquestionably more important than the individuals involved. Anonymity should address some of this concern.
I wonder if Gavin Schmidt was (part of) the source for the IPCC offering as I’d prefer that those that develop whatever theory be involved, but Schmidt vs. Curry would be reasonable proxy in lieu.
↧
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JCH, “And yet, your side cannot write a paper that proves the WMP was warmer than today. Just one simple little paper.”
I don’t think it is “our” job to “prove” anything. All we are responsible for is looking at the data and methods in order to critique the validity.
That is a comparison of a long term low frequency paleo reconstruction used by Marcott and a shorter higher resolution reconstruction of the same area not used by Marcott. The shorter recon is within the uncertainty of the longer, but indicates there is no MWP while the shorter indicates a MWP as warm of warmer than today. If the methods, including data selection, eliminate the MWP, we are allowed to say that it does. Since the MWP existed prior to Mann and Marcott, it would be their job to explain the quirks in their methods not mine to reinvent the MWP.
The theory of orbital cycle influence on climate also existed prior to the “team”.
It would be their job to explain why CO2 lags temperature most of the time but suddenly solar and CO2 have swapped roles. The basic “no-feedback” CO2 sensitivity doesn’t have the a$$ to drive climate when glacial extent is at a minimum, the models are all “projecting” higher than realized impact or lower than realized impacts which is an indication to most rational folks that the models have issues. Not my models, not my job to fix them.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by steven
I think they probably won’t bother to look and if they do their selective memory allows them to forget almost immediately anything that disputes what they wish to say is fact. I liked it tho.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Danny Thomas
CaptDallas,
“Not my models, not my job to fix them.”
But I’d wager you’d be willing to work with them to try if asked, huh? It’s my impression that valid falsification or plausible alternative, is a handy way to do just that.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
