Is there *Anything* in the IPCC report that's not BS?

How not to buy a brick in a box off the back of a truck.
User avatar
Bearguin
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:Don't like the term you are working under? Well, just change Global Warming/Creationism to Climate Change/Intelligent design.
How many times do I have to spell this out? Climate change and global warming address two different issues. Not a hard concept.

Just like creationism and intelligent design.

My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

Bearguin wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:Don't like the term you are working under? Well, just change Global Warming/Creationism to Climate Change/Intelligent design.
How many times do I have to spell this out? Climate change and global warming address two different issues. Not a hard concept.

Just like creationism and intelligent design.
:roll:

Global warming = increasing global temperature
Climate change = changes in temperatures, precipitation, weather patterns

My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.
Between specific people or the science itself?
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Bearguin
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote: My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.
Between specific people or the science itself?

Don't you get that the actions of the people involved have made the science suspect and unclear?

Whether it's become about politics, just being right or what you want to think the cause is, the science is lost in the noise and is losing out in the process.

But to claim (as Geni did to start my rant) that cost is preventing us from doing the science right just stinks. It's an excuse that's been added to other excuses. Hiding, or losing data is not how science is done. But we have to accept that it's "okay" this time. It's bullshit and not the right way to either come to the answer or to sell the answer to the masses.

It stinks and has stunk for some time.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

Bearguin wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote: My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.
Between specific people or the science itself?

Don't you get that the actions of the people involved have made the science suspect and unclear?

Whether it's become about politics, just being right or what you want to think the cause is, the science is lost in the noise and is losing out in the process.

But to claim (as Geni did to start my rant) that cost is preventing us from doing the science right just stinks. It's an excuse that's been added to other excuses. Hiding, or losing data is not how science is done. But we have to accept that it's "okay" this time. It's bullshit and not the right way to either come to the answer or to sell the answer to the masses.

It stinks and has stunk for some time.

So if the same thing happened with biologists studying animal adaptations, would the same sentiments hold for evolution?
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 22504
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator

Post by corplinx »

Mentat wrote: So if the same thing happened with biologists studying animal adaptations, would the same sentiments hold for evolution?
No. I was actually thinking about this yesterday. I was thinking about how to open people's eyes to evolution.

My first thought was "have them subscribe to the new scientist and natgeo rss feeds for a month, and realize what an integral part of every day science evolution is". Not a week goes by that I don't see a story that adds more the mountains of evidence behind evolution. Some minor, some fantastic.

On the other hand, substantive AGW stories are few and far between. NatGeo and NS both have a tendency to run AGW alarmism stories with little basis in observed phenomenon. "Global warming will unseat 8000000000 hottentots by 2020" type stuff. Or "global warming will cause viagara stop working".

Anyways, after thinking about showing people how integral evolution was to modern science, I decided maybe the best route would be relating the news they read or see on TV instead. MRSA, influenza, etc. There are so many health related topics that are basically "evolution is true is why this is occurring".

Meanwhile, when we had a bad hurricane season. Global warming was blamed. Al Gore put the picture of Katrina on the poster for his movie. Dire predictions of "it will only get worse too" were floated.

Now we have had light hurricane seasons since. There is no retraction.

We had mild winters in the US. Global warming was blamed. Now that we have a cold winter. Global warming is also blamed.

How do I relate the truth of AGW to person with no scientific background through example?

Now the alarmists, neo-comms, and profiteers in the AGW community are being found out. Evolution can not be discredited in the same way since evolution is so observable. With AGW, we are told to only observe it on warm days. And then the cold days are proof too. Dry days as well. Stormy ones.

I guess what it comes down to is, good science makes a good predictor. Such is the case with evolution. Such is not the case with AGW. If the science of AGW is ever as sound as that behind evolution, there won't need to be worries about the "damage to the movement" when it turns out some UN official is a corrupt activist.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:Don't like the term you are working under? Well, just change Global Warming/Creationism to Climate Change/Intelligent design.
How many times do I have to spell this out? Climate change and global warming address two different issues. Not a hard concept.

Just like creationism and intelligent design.
:roll:

Global warming = increasing global temperature
Climate change = changes in temperatures, precipitation, weather patterns

My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.
Between specific people or the science itself?
Do you the specific people that study intelligent design or the science of intelligent design?

I think you fail to see that you are projecting.

Though I admit, unlike intelligent design, climatology is a real 'study of' that could, can (and has) produced useful results.

Then science got hijacked.

So too did the real science of dendrochronology.

It became political and then it because religious.

Have you considered how much the [now completely? discredited?] work of Mann, Briffa and Jones represented the bulk of the global warming issue?

Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?

There is no other option except a complete do over.

User avatar
djw
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Boston MA

Post by djw »

Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote: My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.
Between specific people or the science itself?

Don't you get that the actions of the people involved have made the science suspect and unclear?

Whether it's become about politics, just being right or what you want to think the cause is, the science is lost in the noise and is losing out in the process.

But to claim (as Geni did to start my rant) that cost is preventing us from doing the science right just stinks. It's an excuse that's been added to other excuses. Hiding, or losing data is not how science is done. But we have to accept that it's "okay" this time. It's bullshit and not the right way to either come to the answer or to sell the answer to the masses.

It stinks and has stunk for some time.

So if the same thing happened with biologists studying animal adaptations, would the same sentiments hold for evolution?
If the same thing happened? Yes. The scientists involved would have to get their collective shit together and come clean. Audits would be necessary. Lay people would be expected to become suspicious...Yeah.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Bearguin wrote:
Geni wrote:
Rob Lister wrote: There's got to be a redo. And it's got to be open and audited.
You offering to pay?
JESSUS FUCKING CHRIST ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID?

You want us to accept crap "science" because it would cost too much to do it right and then demand, based on the "crap" science that we need to make wholesale changes to our economy, lifestyle etc that will cost trillions?

Do the fucking science right. Open and audited is right.
Perhaps but it would certianly be a novel approach. If you need to publish X numbers of papers a year the last thing you are going to do is release all you data in one go.

Fuck this argument is really pissing me off. The whole "climate change" crew sounds like a fucking religious cult everytime they open their mouths.

What is different between demanding the test be done properly, the data being made available for re-testing and demanding the same from a homeopath?
I understand that this argument was made about pharmaceutical companies. Aparently some communist hippies felt that if your research was partialy publicaly funded you should be open with your results (defined as not limiting to publishing in journals behind paywalls) and data. I can't remeber the end result but I do recall a fair bit being spent on lobbying.
Don't like the term you are working under? Well, just change Global Warming/Creationism to Climate Change/Intelligent design.

And, of course, you can't expect the general public to understand your results/bible unless they hold the right degrees/have the holy spirit.
I think science stopped pretending that the public would understand it's results about the time of the breast implants mess.

And now you have the balls to say we shouldn't re-do the test under proper conditions because it would cost too much.
Not at all. Feel free to stump up the cash and do some re-tests under any conditions you like.

In fact I understand that the indian goverment is planning on doing exactly that.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

djw wrote:If the same thing happened? Yes. The scientists involved would have to get their collective shit together and come clean. Audits would be necessary. Lay people would be expected to become suspicious...Yeah.
In practice the reaction to various hoaxes in that field has mostly been "oh whoops but never mind we have plently of other data" or with a recent case "good things make a lot more sense now".

On the other hand if you are an independent researcher good luck getting your hands on a Homo floresiensis specimen.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

Rob Lister wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:Don't like the term you are working under? Well, just change Global Warming/Creationism to Climate Change/Intelligent design.
How many times do I have to spell this out? Climate change and global warming address two different issues. Not a hard concept.

Just like creationism and intelligent design.
:roll:

Global warming = increasing global temperature
Climate change = changes in temperatures, precipitation, weather patterns

My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.
Between specific people or the science itself?
Do you the specific people that study intelligent design or the science of intelligent design?
I was asking bearguin to clarify. Obviously any discipline will have bad apples, and anybody can make anything look bad by holding them as what accounts for whatever they represent *coughpoliticscough*
I think you fail to see that you are projecting.
:roll:

Projecting? Do elucidate, O great arm chair shrink. You should meet Evil Yeti, both of you would get along famously.

Though I admit, unlike intelligent design, climatology is a real 'study of' that could, can (and has) produced useful results.

Then science got hijacked.
Perfectly valid excuse to discredit any science.
So too did the real science of dendrochronology.

It became political and then it because religious.
No, it went public.
Have you considered how much the [now completely? discredited?] work of Mann, Briffa and Jones represented the bulk of the global warming issue?

Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?
Really?
There is no other option except a complete do over.
Of their work? Sure.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

corplinx wrote: On the other hand, substantive AGW stories are few and far between.


Substantive AGW research is either mind renchingly dull (stats model updates) or expensive and takes decades.
Meanwhile, when we had a bad hurricane season. Global warming was blamed. Al Gore put the picture of Katrina on the poster for his movie. Dire predictions of "it will only get worse too" were floated.

Now we have had light hurricane seasons since. There is no retraction.
Because most climate scientists didn't blame global warming so have nothing to retract. The media isn't going to report a bunch of people saying that in effect "no story here". Actualy there are some global warming models that suggest less hurricanes due to increased wind shear.

We had mild winters in the US. Global warming was blamed. Now that we have a cold winter. Global warming is also blamed.

How do I relate the truth of AGW to person with no scientific background through example?
Weather wise if you notice it it isn't global warming. Anyone telling you otherwise is bullshitting.
Now the alarmists, neo-comms, and profiteers in the AGW community are being found out. Evolution can not be discredited in the same way since evolution is so observable. With AGW, we are told to only observe it on warm days. And then the cold days are proof too. Dry days as well. Stormy ones.

I guess what it comes down to is, good science makes a good predictor. Such is the case with evolution. Such is not the case with AGW. If the science of AGW is ever as sound as that behind evolution, there won't need to be worries about the "damage to the movement" when it turns out some UN official is a corrupt activist.
The problem is that evolutionary equiverlent are all those just so stories that are so popular in evolutionary psychology right now. And lets face it when people wake up to the fact that a lot of the work in the field is complete rubbish evolution is going to take a hit.

The media reports the interesting climate change scientists. Not the ones who respond "It's called weather stop wasting my time".

It's also a lot more fund to report some non critical errors in the IPCC reports rather than repeating the core findings (the the earth is warming and it's fairly probably due to human activity) again and again.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?
This is purely anecdotal, but when I did my research, we ended up looking at a lot of material from previous stuff that could have been flat out wrong, but we still would have used them because of an explanation of terminology, or to say we weren't the only ones making an observation, etc. Of course, we just did undergrad stuff, we didn't rely previous data, and everything we did could be generated; we didn't hide anything.

Still, my point is that just because stuff is referenced a lot doesn't mean it's necessarily dependent on it. It depends on what each research scientists was doing. I saw that quite a bit, but then again I was in a very very different field.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Mentat wrote:
Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?
This is purely anecdotal, but when I did my research, we ended up looking at a lot of material from previous stuff that could have been flat out wrong, but we still would have used them because of an explanation of terminology, or to say we weren't the only ones making an observation, etc. Of course, we just did undergrad stuff, we didn't rely previous data, and everything we did could be generated; we didn't hide anything.

Still, my point is that just because stuff is referenced a lot doesn't mean it's necessarily dependent on it. It depends on what each research scientists was doing. I saw that quite a bit, but then again I was in a very very different field.
Okay. This should be pretty easy then. Find me a couple of seminal paleoreconstructions that show unprecedented climate change and are not at least somewhat reliant on the work of the hockey team. Lets at least get a feel for what it is that has to be redone.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Mentat wrote:
Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?
This is purely anecdotal, but when I did my research, we ended up looking at a lot of material from previous stuff that could have been flat out wrong, but we still would have used them because of an explanation of terminology, or to say we weren't the only ones making an observation, etc. Of course, we just did undergrad stuff, we didn't rely previous data, and everything we did could be generated; we didn't hide anything.

Still, my point is that just because stuff is referenced a lot doesn't mean it's necessarily dependent on it. It depends on what each research scientists was doing. I saw that quite a bit, but then again I was in a very very different field.
Oh one of the fun things people have been able to do with modern research databases is tract the missspelling of author and paper names in citations and work out who isn't even looking at the original papers.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Geni wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?
This is purely anecdotal, but when I did my research, we ended up looking at a lot of material from previous stuff that could have been flat out wrong, but we still would have used them because of an explanation of terminology, or to say we weren't the only ones making an observation, etc. Of course, we just did undergrad stuff, we didn't rely previous data, and everything we did could be generated; we didn't hide anything.

Still, my point is that just because stuff is referenced a lot doesn't mean it's necessarily dependent on it. It depends on what each research scientists was doing. I saw that quite a bit, but then again I was in a very very different field.
Oh one of the fun things people have been able to do with modern research databases is tract the missspelling of author and paper names in citations and work out who isn't even looking at the original papers.
Well I tell you what Geni, you find a work as suggested above that misspells either Mann, Briffa or Jones, and I'll count that as one for you.

User avatar
Bearguin
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Bearguin wrote: My point is that I see little difference between this and religion at this point. Not wanting to show data. Not wanting to show methodology. And trying to simply ridicule others who want to look at these things.

With all the sleight of hand and goalpost moving that's occurred, it's hard to think of it as much else.
Between specific people or the science itself?

Don't you get that the actions of the people involved have made the science suspect and unclear?

Whether it's become about politics, just being right or what you want to think the cause is, the science is lost in the noise and is losing out in the process.

But to claim (as Geni did to start my rant) that cost is preventing us from doing the science right just stinks. It's an excuse that's been added to other excuses. Hiding, or losing data is not how science is done. But we have to accept that it's "okay" this time. It's bullshit and not the right way to either come to the answer or to sell the answer to the masses.

It stinks and has stunk for some time.

So if the same thing happened with biologists studying animal adaptations, would the same sentiments hold for evolution?
Yes.

Understand at no time do I claim to be a denier of climate change. But if the same kind of actions went on in the evolution camp, I would not support it as well.

But the same stuff has not gone on. There is plenty of data published, reviewed etc. Yes, this latest may just be a piltdown man, but if all we had for evolution was the piltdown man, yes I would question it.

But that is clearly not the case here.

User avatar
Bearguin
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

Mentat wrote:
I was asking bearguin to clarify. Obviously any discipline will have bad apples, and anybody can make anything look bad by holding them as what accounts for whatever they represent *coughpoliticscough*
Well. I hope I satisfied.

And we seem to have a situation where it just isn't one or two bad apples.

Let's see the good science being done then.

And I do get that the media is swinging in what they report on right now and may very well be missing the good science as it doesn't sell. But all I see lately is bad press on the topic.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Bearguin wrote:
Yes.

Understand at no time do I claim to be a denier of climate change. But if the same kind of actions went on in the evolution camp, I would not support it as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_flore ... men_damage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiner_Protsch

The second one is interesting. His results were causing all sorts of problems due to not matching the rest of the data but it took a long time for anyone to work out what he was up to.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

Rob Lister wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?
This is purely anecdotal, but when I did my research, we ended up looking at a lot of material from previous stuff that could have been flat out wrong, but we still would have used them because of an explanation of terminology, or to say we weren't the only ones making an observation, etc. Of course, we just did undergrad stuff, we didn't rely previous data, and everything we did could be generated; we didn't hide anything.

Still, my point is that just because stuff is referenced a lot doesn't mean it's necessarily dependent on it. It depends on what each research scientists was doing. I saw that quite a bit, but then again I was in a very very different field.
Okay. This should be pretty easy then. Find me a couple of seminal paleoreconstructions that show unprecedented climate change and are not at least somewhat reliant on the work of the hockey team. Lets at least get a feel for what it is that has to be redone.
Most of the articles of interest need payment to see. There's this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holoc ... ations.png where you can look at individual contributions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holoc ... ta_Sources )
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Mentat wrote:
Rob Lister wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Do you get that almost every major paper on the subject not written by the three of them together or separate reference their work in substantial ways?
This is purely anecdotal, but when I did my research, we ended up looking at a lot of material from previous stuff that could have been flat out wrong, but we still would have used them because of an explanation of terminology, or to say we weren't the only ones making an observation, etc. Of course, we just did undergrad stuff, we didn't rely previous data, and everything we did could be generated; we didn't hide anything.

Still, my point is that just because stuff is referenced a lot doesn't mean it's necessarily dependent on it. It depends on what each research scientists was doing. I saw that quite a bit, but then again I was in a very very different field.
Okay. This should be pretty easy then. Find me a couple of seminal paleoreconstructions that show unprecedented climate change and are not at least somewhat reliant on the work of the hockey team. Lets at least get a feel for what it is that has to be redone.
Most of the articles of interest need payment to see. There's this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holoc ... ations.png where you can look at individual contributions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holoc ... ta_Sources )
* (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

Try another.

ETA: But you're right about one thing: most all are pay-to-read and I wouldn't pay to read them; nor would I expect you to.

Lets try it a different way: pick one out that a popular rag talks about.