<i>"First you say it exists, then you say you’re not convinced it exists."</i>
I'm not convinced it is rightly called a pause. But the behaviour of temperatures in the last decade or so is within the range of known variability.
<i>"So you believe Edwards is incorrect and that a pause was not expected."</i>
For an editor, you pay very little attention to getting things right. TE did not say a pause was expected. She said <i>"scientists always expected this kind of thing could happen in the short term"</i>. Just like the myriad things that could happen to temperature (or the Dow) in the next decade.
<i>"Can anyone identify that verb tense? "</i>
In describing the Fabian language, they call it a perfect subjunctive.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by PA
The problems with Verheggen’s paper were:
1. Biased selection of participants.
2. Inclusion of non-participants (biologists, psychologists, etc.)
3. Only about 30% participation
4. Weighted toward frequent publishers who because of gatekeeping are more likely to be global warmers.
Given the validity problems it is likely that less than 50% of “real” climate scientists believe man is responsible for more than 50% of the warming (given the 22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 study it is impossible that CO2 emissions could be responsible for most of the warming).
However bad this study was it was a quantum improvement over past studies.
However, the basic problem is that instead of taking empirical measurements of GHG forcing we are having scientists vote on how strong it is.
When it comes to science – voting instead of measuring is wrong. It is ludicrous that this has to be said – it should be obvious.
There shouldn’t be 1 study of downwelling IR after 35 years – there should be a dozen. And the one actual study indicates CO2 forcing is grossly overestimated.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
<a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703" rel="nofollow">This has been linked to on Climate Etc. about a billion times, but hey, what harm is there in one more?</a>
<i>Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”</i>
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Willard
> If anything it describes a paradigm as the opposite of “ordained truth” [...]
If that's the case, then this description contradicts the claim that <em><strong>unlike “consensus”</strong> it [vox populi] does not have the sense of being ordained truth</em>, which characterizes "consensus" as an ordained truth.
This would also establish that what I said about this claim (it makes little sense, if all you have is Kuhn’s concept of paradigm) is quite relevant indeed.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Jim D
Verheggen checked biases in response rates, and while the “unconvinced” tended to be more active in responding, their higher response rate did not distort the results too much.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Michael Cunningham
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso
An article in the New York Times proposes a study of “ignorance”. Of course, being the NYT, they don’t really mean it. Humility from Big Smug? Jerk the other one.
In fact, the study of ignorance just means more word-stews and number-pies crammed with dodgy percentages and probabilities, reinforced by models and push polls, and adorned with many buzz-words (lovin’ “epistemic” this month). Yes, that final frontier territory called Unknown will be mapped, tamed and brought within the fenceline where it can be made to behave.
Really, a simple dunno might serve better. Especially about climate, where you really dunno.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by beththeserf
Bias,
helas,
tres
ludicrass.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by timg56
Willard,
The only joke is you slipping into those shoes so easily.
Like Professor Rice, you jump to a conclusion that shows your ass. A recommendation to include someone knowledgeable in the technical aspects of what your research is based on is not some made up high dungeon perverse requirement. Just as asking someone whose background is physics to consider asking an expert on statistical analysis is a reasonable request.
According to your logic, you would have your general practitioner perform open heart surgery. You are a tard Willard and no amount of demeaningname calling changes that.
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Bart Verheggen
Captdallas, please read what I write. I don’t assume that those are all in one camp. Actually the opposite: I argue that we don’t really know. Fabmax a.o. assume what you imply shouldn’t be assumed. So we’re in agreement on that it seems.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Steven Mosher
People.
none of you even come close to being able to square off against willard in a philosophical discussion. pikers.
a better option is to ask him what he thinks. youll learn something.
I did
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Bart Verheggen
Judith,
We did have survey researchers on board, e.g. Kees Vringer has a lot of experience with that. Advice was sought from other social scientists as well.
But your comment appears at odds with what you often proclaim: the virtue of bringing in outsiders.
As for multiple interpretations: you highlighted only one, which is clearly at odds with the published paper. At least mention those difference then.
Still curious how you would answer my alternative type of question. That goes to the heart of my argument. Studiously ignored by everyone here it seems. Tribalism lives!
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by timg56
Willard,
Or more appropriately, twit, I said nothing of the kind.
What I said was a recommendation to include a subject matter expert was nowhere close to what you and Ken Rice are trying to claim . I am beginning to think he is decent enough to rethink some of his posts. As in he believes, but recognizes boundaries. You are still a twit.
Give me a T. Give me a W. Give me … Well you get the rest.
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by thomaswfuller2
Hiya Bart,
I’ve asked several times to see the data. I’d really love to see it. Can it be arranged?
Thanks
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
<i> Crucial ocean acidification papers come up short. [link]</i>
golly.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by kneel63
I see it very differently.
The way I see it is that Dyson is suggesting it's hardly "settled" or "uncontroversal", that there are large gaps in the basic knowledge etc and he is personally not comfortable in stating that we <i>must <b> do something!</b></i>
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by ...and Then There's Physics
<blockquote>
According to your logic, you would have your general practitioner perform open heart surgery.
</blockquote>
Hmmm, I had assumed that the reason why my GP would not typically perform open heart surgery was that there was some kind of system in place (maybe a form of regulation) that essentially prevented them from doing so. I hadn't realised that it was simply a recommendation.
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by ...and Then There's Physics
Rud,
it is OK for Salon to leave misleading, admittedly wrong impressions out there in cyberspace forever because just a recall mistake? Thank you for this clear statement of your morals. Nuff said. You, Sir, are a true Lysenko/Alinski warmunist.
Am I getting to you, or something? What an utterly bizarre thing for you to say. They were reporting on an interview with another individual. If that other individual had said something libelous and actionable, then of course there would be reasons for a retraction, but mis-remembering what Hansen said doesn’t really fall into that kind of category. Their report was a presumably a fair representation of an interview. The interviewer’s recollection appears not to be correct, but it’s hard to see why this incorrect recollection is such a big deal as it’s not really in the category of things that would be really damaging to the person’s reputation. The only reason it has become significant is because a group of people, who most regard as ridiculous, use it as an example of alarmist rhetoric. Since it’s really only someone’s recollection of someone else saying something alarmist, it’s not really a particularly good example. Only those clutching at straws and willing to use anything would argue that it was.
Now, of course, I haven’t said the above in the expectation that you would respond in some sensible and reasonable fashion. I fully expect another conspiracy-laden outburst. Feel free not to disappoint.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Personally, I think one could learn far <em>more</em> from an <em>independent</em> study of the prevalence of ignorance among the good and the great (aka the NYT's authors - both the regular and most of the guest kind - and commentariat).
My guess is that such a study would not reveal a particularly pretty picture of the NYT.
For some strange reason, almost every other day I receive subscription offers from the NYT. I'll take their 10 freebies/month. But beyond that?! I'm not sure they could <em>pay me</em> enough to subscribe!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso
Sport pages only with that lot.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
