Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Climategate: The Sequel


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Climategate: The Sequel Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/26/2011 9:20:11 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Rich,

Here is a recent article about the problems that some scientist and researcher get into, and how the quest for recognition can deviate from the ideal model of "science".

November 13, 2011
Fraud Scandal Fuels Debate Over Practices of Social Psychology
Even legitimate researchers cut corners, some admit
By Christopher Shea

Extracts:

The discovery that the Dutch researcher Diederik A. Stapel made up the data for dozens of research papers has shaken up the field of social psychology, fueling a discussion not just about outright fraud, but also about subtler ways of misusing research data. Such misuse can happen even unintentionally, as researchers try to make a splash with their peers—and a splash, maybe, with the news media, too.
...

Bad things happen when researchers feel under pressure, he adds—and it doesn't have to be Stapel-bad: "There's a slippery slope between making up your data and torturing your data."

...

The odds of statistical bogosity grow when researchers don't have to report all the ways they manipulated their data in exploratory fashion. For example, the researchers "used father's age to control for baseline age across participants," thereby fudging the subjects' actual ages. They factored in lots of completely irrelevant data. And, rather than establish from the outset how many subjects they would test, they tested until they obtained the false result.

The authors of that provocative paper were Joseph P. Simmons and Uri Simonsohn of the University of Pennsylvania, and Leif D. Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley. "Many of us," they wrote—"and this includes the three authors of this article"—end up "yielding to the pressure to do whatever is justifiable to compile a set of studies that we can publish. This is driven not by a willingness to deceive but by the self-serving interpretation of ambiguity. ... "

In a forthcoming paper, also to appear in Psychological Science, Leslie K. John, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, and two co-authors report that about a third of the 2,000 academic psychologists they surveyed admit to questionable research practices. Those don't include outright fraud, but rather such practices as stopping the collection of data when a desired result is found, or omitting from the final paper some of the variables tested.

This problem just points to the fact that scientists - in any field - are human, and subject to the same pressures and desires that all human flesh is
subject to.

Firm




_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 3:07:54 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

I promised you I'd pull up something to read, so here you go.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian

That's the agenda that doesn't have anything to do with the environment, Tweak. Power. You want to see the money? Google up Al Gore's financials, or the Solyndra debacle for yourself.


I suppose we ought to be grateful that you've deigned to supply some 'evidence' to supposedly back up your claims. But having read the article - 1200 words on a neo-con (American Enterprise Institute) site by a non-specialist AEI staff member - I don't really understand why you bothered.

The piece argues that "science is more authoritarian" on the basis of single graph said to analyse media reports of scientific findings. Even if it's content is granted in full (and that's an extremely contentious 'if'), how that might be said to establish that climate change science has been hijacked by a socio-political agenda, as you claimed, is something that is clear to you alone. If you find such tenuous connections and flimsy trash persuasive, I'm surprised there isn't a queue of people at your door offering to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Considering the only 'independent' evidence you've offered comes from a overtly far Right site with an open socio-political agenda of its own, and very questionable track record of analysis (WMDs, Iraq War anyone?) it's infantile to expect this evidence to persuade any but the one-eyed. The most generous reading I can come up with is it illustrates why you've been so reluctant to post any supporting evidence for your claims - deep down you realise how bankrupt, intellectually shoddy and embarrassing your claims are.

You've had plenty of time to present whatever evidence you can muster and you've failed utterly and miserably to come up with anything remotely intelligent or persuasive. Your claims, The Heretic, are ideologically driven trash without a shred of credible evidence presented to date to support them.

Finally, my answer to your question in post #11 is: "I don't know, nor do I see why I ought to be expected to know."



< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/27/2011 3:18:02 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 6:55:27 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Finally, my answer to your question in post #11 is: "I don't know, nor do I see why I ought to be expected to know."




If you dont know, or why you would be expected to know, then stfu. It only underlies the entire science that youve been spewing forth nonsense about.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 7:15:47 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I realize there are some numbnuts who don't think the climate is changing (somebody posted a list of them once) but, there are unresolved issues. How much? How fast? What is really going on? And not least of all, would preparing for the effects be more time and cost-effective than trying to stop it. Suppressing anomalous data in order to further an agenda, however well intended, isn't science. It's fraud.

K.



Good questions, Kirata, but there is one I insist on asking the cultists first. If we view this terms of geologic time, instead of knee-jerk dumbass time where 150 years is held up as significant, then climate change and events become the norm, rather than a singular, man-made catastrophe. So the question is, what are they comparing these recent records to?



I'll answer this just to make a point since this particular strawman is quite common in denialist lies.

Geologic time is utterly pointless for climate. Climate changes way too often for a time scale of 5 or 10 million years to be usefull.

We are comparing recent records to the data we have for the existence of mankind as a civilization.

The reason this instance of climate change is a singular man made catastrophe is that it is happening very fast and is happening without any apparent non man made cause. The conditions that created and maintained a temperate climate across much of the planet have not changed, average distance from the sun, axial tilt, Antartica at the southern pole.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 7:17:48 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

FR

The silence from the LSM is deafening. And where is Ken's obligatory strawman, its been at least a day and a half.

I was waiting for you liars to settle on a quote you thought proved something. Since the emails failed to produce anything I've let you poor fools flail about in your vain hope that your wishes would make something true.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 7:29:34 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

FR

The silence from the LSM is deafening. And where is Ken's obligatory strawman, its been at least a day and a half.

I was waiting for you liars to settle on a quote you thought proved something. Since the emails failed to produce anything I've let you poor fools flail about in your vain hope that your wishes would make something true.



Your attempts at denial are pathological. AGW:

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 8:55:45 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

FR

The silence from the LSM is deafening. And where is Ken's obligatory strawman, its been at least a day and a half.

I was waiting for you liars to settle on a quote you thought proved something. Since the emails failed to produce anything I've let you poor fools flail about in your vain hope that your wishes would make something true.



Your attempts at denial are pathological. AGW:

What denial? Did you and the rest of the denialists settle on some "smoking gun" email or not?

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 10:12:31 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll answer this just to make a point since this particular strawman is quite common in denialist lies.

Geologic time is utterly pointless for climate. Climate changes way too often for a time scale of 5 or 10 million years to be usefull.

We are comparing recent records to the data we have for the existence of mankind as a civilization.

The reason this instance of climate change is a singular man made catastrophe is that it is happening very fast and is happening without any apparent non man made cause. The conditions that created and maintained a temperate climate across much of the planet have not changed, average distance from the sun, axial tilt, Antartica at the southern pole.



Hi, Ken. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving, surrounded by family, friends, and loved ones. I was hoping you'd find the time to join us in here, all the same.

Thanks for acknowledging that climate changes are the norm. I've been saying that for quite some time, and typically, you just call me names, and put me on your little lists.

So where are you drawing the line for starting human civilization? 5000 years? 3000? Since right at the end of the medieval warm period, like the good folks who draw the graphs? Perhaps you are only including the less than 300 years that we have had a consistent way of measuring and recording temperatures? Whatever your intent in such an ill-defined span, it is meaningless to any sort of comparative study. Even going from the cooling of the planet surface, arrival of our oceans, and the evolution of life, human civilization is a fraction of a fraction of the history of the climate on this planet

Do tell me though, since you've started off by saying we have no foundation for comparison, how you can then say anything at all about the relative speed of the changes?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 11:14:55 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll answer this just to make a point since this particular strawman is quite common in denialist lies.

Geologic time is utterly pointless for climate. Climate changes way too often for a time scale of 5 or 10 million years to be usefull.

We are comparing recent records to the data we have for the existence of mankind as a civilization.

The reason this instance of climate change is a singular man made catastrophe is that it is happening very fast and is happening without any apparent non man made cause. The conditions that created and maintained a temperate climate across much of the planet have not changed, average distance from the sun, axial tilt, Antartica at the southern pole.



Hi, Ken. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving, surrounded by family, friends, and loved ones. I was hoping you'd find the time to join us in here, all the same.

Thanks for acknowledging that climate changes are the norm. I've been saying that for quite some time, and typically, you just call me names, and put me on your little lists.

So where are you drawing the line for starting human civilization? 5000 years? 3000? Since right at the end of the medieval warm period, like the good folks who draw the graphs? Perhaps you are only including the less than 300 years that we have had a consistent way of measuring and recording temperatures? Whatever your intent in such an ill-defined span, it is meaningless to any sort of comparative study. Even going from the cooling of the planet surface, arrival of our oceans, and the evolution of life, human civilization is a fraction of a fraction of the history of the climate on this planet

Do tell me though, since you've started off by saying we have no foundation for comparison, how you can then say anything at all about the relative speed of the changes?

We have 100k years of very good climate data which encompasses all of human civilization. So thanks for trying to make shit up. Maybe you should have actually read what I wrote. Maybe from now you will read what I write?

As to the rest of your nonsense, one more time human civilization cannot survive under conditions that have reigned in the past, human life itself could not survive during most of the planet's history.

Who said we had no basis for comparison on previous climatic changes? I certainly didn't.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 12:34:13 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".


Yep, sounds like the debate rages on.
It would be a REAL TREAT if we could even see a FEW of these in some kind of context.
We can't establish unfortunately from either article whether these are just emails shooting around the Pennsylvania University of Diddling or if they are all over the landscape of environmental science. Course we have a blogger who's claiming it's a big deal. But who is he? When the infamous NYT Release of Sarah Palin's emails came we got to see PDFs full of whole emails.
   I do think though it's important to point out that Steve McIntyre is decidedly against the main stream scientific community. And he seems to be pretty tight with the great "Heartland Institute", which is basically a think tank, if you want to call them that, which relies all too frequently on the "one study" stuff McIntyre's seeking to highlight with his excerpts.
  I'm not of course saying there isn't reason to ask the question what's in the complete string of emails IN CONTEXT, I just think this is a little too thin on it's own.



_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 12:51:29 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

This isn't just a lie, Ken, it is a stupid lie, and that's before we get to the issue of the time scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have 100k years of very good climate data ...



No. We don't. We have a couple hundred years of observations, with only a chunk of that being up to snuff to create a coherent larger picture. We have tree rings back a couple of thousand. Then we get into the ice cores, and sediment samples to get some little snapshots that can feed into whatever bias you seek to confirm, and those are only as reliable as the assumptions that must be applied to determine how consecutive the ice layers might be, and the sedimentation rates of the oceans.

The time frame for life on earth? Shall we go back 400 million years, to the first forests? 250 million, to the first mammals? 65 million, to the beginning of mammalian domination? Pick your mark, Ken, and even if we assume the highest levels of accuracy to what you claim is significant, your pathetic 100k doesn't give you shit to stand on when you make declarative statements about this being something special.

All you have is a deep seated human arrogance of post hoc proptor hoc fallacy, and never mind what happened before we came along.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 12:53:31 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



We have tree rings back a couple of thousand.


You mean that data that was extrapolated from a single tree, because the surrounding trees didnt support the theory?

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 1:03:00 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



This isn't just a lie, Ken, it is a stupid lie, and that's before we get to the issue of the time scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have 100k years of very good climate data ...



No. We don't. We have a couple hundred years of observations, with only a chunk of that being up to snuff to create a coherent larger picture. We have tree rings back a couple of thousand.

We have tree rings back over 10k actually

quote:

Then we get into the ice cores,

Good ice cores go back 100k years.

quote:

The time frame for life on earth? Shall we go back 400 million years, to the first forests? 250 million, to the first mammals? 65 million, to the beginning of mammalian domination? Pick your mark, Ken, and even if we assume the highest levels of accuracy to what you claim is significant, your pathetic 100k doesn't give you shit to stand on when you make declarative statements about this being something special.

All you have is a deep seated human arrogance of post hoc proptor hoc fallacy, and never mind what happened before we came along.

Since we're concerned with human civilization the time frame worth considering is the lifespan of human civilization or less than 10k years. Which means the 100k years we have good data for is a full order of magnitude more than the timespan we're concerned with.

But if you insist lets go back 350 million years to the beginning of major forestation. CO2 concentrations exceed 1000ppm. Most of Europe and North America are vast swamps. Temperatures routinely exceed 130F (which just happens to be fatal to humans). So the air was unbreathable for us and the temp was so high that we often would have died from the heat. Is that a climate you want to go back to?

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 1:06:21 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


We have tree rings back over 10k actually



You mean tree ring data extrapolated from a single tree because the surrounding ones didnt support the theory?

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 1:08:32 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


We have tree rings back over 10k actually



You mean tree ring data extrapolated from a single tree because the surrounding ones didnt support the theory?

No. I mean overlapping tree rings from muliple sources. You seem to be believing denialist liars again.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 1:12:51 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


We have tree rings back over 10k actually



You mean tree ring data extrapolated from a single tree because the surrounding ones didnt support the theory?

No. I mean overlapping tree rings from muliple sources. You seem to be believing denialist liars again.


I believe the emails I read from the AGW scientists that admitted exactly that.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 1:23:41 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


We have tree rings back over 10k actually



You mean tree ring data extrapolated from a single tree because the surrounding ones didnt support the theory?

No. I mean overlapping tree rings from muliple sources. You seem to be believing denialist liars again.


I believe the emails I read from the AGW scientists that admitted exactly that.

please present links to the entire email.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 1:32:48 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Yeah, Ken, that's about what I expected. Ignore the question of how consecutive those ice layers are. Don't even acknowledge the assumptions about sedimentation rates to get those ocean floor samples. Then insist that only the human time frame matters anyway, to distract from the stench of what you stepped in. About what I expected, but you are like the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving special; it just doesn't feel right without your contribution.

Enjoy.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 3:29:27 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Finally, my answer to your question in post #11 is: "I don't know, nor do I see why I ought to be expected to know."




If you dont know, or why you would be expected to know, then stfu. It only underlies the entire science that youve been spewing forth nonsense about.

Poor poor Willbe. Utterly totally 100% wrong as usual.

The pseudo-science I was discussing in post #42 was that advanced in post #40 by TheHeretic to support his wild (now discredited) claims. Specifically it was the article from the neo-con AEI site linked by TheHeretic. Only the very last single sentence of my post referred to the climate change science, about which I don't profess to know a lot.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised that Willbe confuses the two - his position of climate change denial is tenable only believing the tiny amounts of ideologically-driven psuedo-science (such as the AEI article) over the mountains of specialist scientific literature that propose a human role in climate change.

It is highly amusing to watch the gaggle of looney Right-wingers posting here posing (and apparently expecting to be taken seriously) as expert scientific commentators on this issue. It becomes side-splittingly funny when (as in Willbe and TheHeretic's efforts above) they fail to master even the most elementary aspects of the debate. And it's simply hilarious when, without a hint of irony or self-consciousness, they accuse the other side of operating from a hidden 'socio-political agenda'.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/27/2011 3:33:45 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Climategate: The Sequel - 11/27/2011 3:31:03 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Finally, my answer to your question in post #11 is: "I don't know, nor do I see why I ought to be expected to know."




If you dont know, or why you would be expected to know, then stfu. It only underlies the entire science that youve been spewing forth nonsense about.

Poor poor Willbe. Utterly totally 100% wrong as usual.

The pseudo-science I was discussing in post #42 was that advanced by TheHeretic to support his wild (now discredited) claims in post #40. Only the very last single sentence of my post referred to the climate change science, about which I don't profess to know a lot.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised that Willbe confuses the two - his position of climate change denial is tenable only believing the tiny amounts of ideologically-driven psuedo-science (such as the AEI article) over the mountains of specialist scientific literature that propose a human role in climate change.

It is highly amusing to watch the gaggle of looney Right-wingers posting here posing (and apparently expecting to be taken seriously) as expert scientific commentators on this issue. It becomes side-splittingly funny when (as in Willbe and TheHeretic's efforts above) they can't even master the most elementary aspects of the debate. And it's simply hilarious when, without a hint of irony or self-consciousness, they accuse the other side of operating from a hidden 'socio-political agenda'.


The only funny thing is your absolute cluelessness on the issues the adults are discussing.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Climategate: The Sequel Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125