- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
clown who wrote discredited 97% consensus paper doubles down
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:23 pm
3
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:29 pm to CptBengal
This clown is too cowardly to pull that stunt on a more unbiased site. Reddit users are liberal as shite, so he is preaching to the choir.
If he had some balls, he'd come on here.
If he had some balls, he'd come on here.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:33 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Yes, the politics board of a college sports website. That ... makes sense.
If he had some balls, he'd come on here.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:48 pm to Iosh
quote:In fact, he would be intellectually eviscerated on this """college sports website""". He would be embarrassed here.
If he had some balls, he'd come on here.
Yes, the politics board of a college sports website. That ... makes sense.
As one of the very few proAGW people who normally can hold his own here, I'd be stunned if you'd disagree.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 7:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Cook would get neg-repped into oblivion, but he would factually destroy almost every poster here, and I say that as someone who doesn't hold much truck for his paper or the partisanship of SkepSci in general. I assure you this politics board is not some enlightened bastion of informed skepticism where he would be hard-pressed for references, or indeed doing much of anything beyond linking the "Basic" tab on the top 20 or so common skeptic arguments.
As one of the very few proAGW people who normally can hold his own here, I'd be stunned if you'd disagree.
This board is pretty much just like any other right-leaning politics board. It's a tribal echo chamber where the skeptics are loyal to each other rather than skepticism. Bad arguments abound because getting the facts right isn't as important as tribal signaling that you are a part of the unified front against the Great and Powerful ALGORE. When Tuba or Korkstand says something dumb, I don't let it slide because they're "on my side." But you can basically make as bad an argument as you want here and if it has enough haterade you will get, at most, ignored. People will cling for pages to chestnuts like "CO2 lags temperature" and "what's an average temperature anyway," arguments which Roy Freaking Spencer, one of the most strident skeptics you will find, thinks are stupid.
And nobody here looks at primary literature. It's a good AGW thread if I have to follow less than two links to get from the shitty polemic blog to the neutral news story to the underlying study (sometimes there's a gap because I'll have to search a scientist's name or a title to get to the paper). Say what you want about the Cook paper or SkepSci, but they link all their sources.
Buuuuuut, I was mainly commenting on the incongruity of him "showing up" to Tigerdroppings.com as opposed to, say, Climate Etc.
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 7:36 pm
Posted on 9/8/14 at 7:37 pm to Iosh
quote:Someone conducting a politicized survey, then terming it as "science" would not "destroy" anyone here. He would be appropriately embarrassed by many, hopefully you amongst them.
but he would factually destroy almost every poster here
Posted on 9/8/14 at 7:42 pm to Iosh
quote:BTW, that's the m/o isn't it?
Buuuuuut, I was mainly commenting on the incongruity of him "showing up" to Tigerdroppings.com as opposed to, say, Climate Etc.
"Mainstream" journals are politiced out of carrying any skeptical work, thereby eliminating any chance for appropriate discourse. Again, not remotely the behavior of true scientists.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 7:42 pm to Iosh
quote:
but he would factually destroy almost every poster her
we're all so totally in the burn now. the global warming burn. get it? warm? burn?
Posted on 9/8/14 at 7:44 pm to Iosh
quote:
but he would factually destroy almost every poster here
No he wouldn't. There are several posters on this board who hold graduate degrees in statistics. Would be tough for him to "factually" argue for a survey and methods that have already been thoroughly discredited as bullshite.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 8:01 pm to CptBengal
Maybe HE can tell us what the "global" temperature is supposed to be.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 8:21 pm to udtiger
quote:
Maybe HE can tell us what the "global" temperature is supposed to be.
Or what CO2 concentrations should be...
Posted on 9/8/14 at 8:29 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Do you really think it's reasonable to promote consensus as the standard for certainty in a scientific hypothesis?
Reddit seems to be doing OK.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 8:46 pm to Iosh
quote:Do you get "neg-repped into oblivion"?
Cook would get neg-repped into oblivion
quote:By posting sketch cariactures? Doubtful.
he would factually destroy almost every poster here
quote:Yeah. No left leaning boards are like that. Only the right-leaning ones.
This board is pretty much just like any other right-leaning politics board. It's a tribal echo chamber
LINK quote:Because some are wrong, does not mean Cook is right.
People will cling for pages to chestnuts like "CO2 lags temperature" and "what's an average temperature anyway," arguments which Roy Freaking Spencer, one of the most strident skeptics you will find, thinks are stupid.
quote:False.
And nobody here looks at primary literature.
quote:I'd reckon he's welcome to post his cartoons here. Don't think anyone would mind. I mean, Keith Briffa in full beard is not going to be an OT 10, but hey... that's cool.
I was mainly commenting on the incongruity of him "showing up" to Tigerdroppings.com
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:52 pm to Iosh
quote:
Cook would get neg-repped into oblivion, but he would factually destroy almost every poster here, and I say that as someone who doesn't hold much truck for his paper or the partisanship of SkepSci in general. I assure you this politics board is not some enlightened bastion of informed skepticism where he would be hard-pressed for references, or indeed doing much of anything beyond linking the "Basic" tab on the top 20 or so common skeptic arguments.
I usually have questions about any study's methodology, analysis, or interpretation, but in general I rarely find one unworthy of being categorized as scholarly work. That being said, when I do come across one, I will ardently express my disbelief in the study's presentation as scholarly. One such study is the Cook study on consensus. Not only is the methodology fundamentally flawed throughout, but it is based on a false premise in the first place. I personally believe that his study does a lot of harm; it fuels the individuals on both studies who have show very little logic and reason (i.e., the "your head is in the sand" people on one side and the "it is obviously a conspiracy" people on the other side). The only good is that I can look through these threads and find people that either lack critical thinking altogether or choose not to use the critical thinking that they do have.
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 9/8/14 at 11:04 pm to CptBengal
From the thread...
Touche!
Touche!
Posted on 9/8/14 at 11:06 pm to Meauxjeaux
BuckeyeVol knows the study. The methodology is poor it is appaling anyone would even try to defend it.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 11:09 pm to CptBengal
I noted the following... nice question and it has yet to be answered by ole Skepty-Sciboi...
quote:
[–]SkepticalScience[S] 114 points 6 hours ago
We use proxies for temperature from ice cores, stalagmites, tree-rings, lake sediments, etc to build a picture of climate change over millions of years. So we have an enormous amount of data spanning much of the history of the Earth.
Nevertheless, even the data collected over the past 40-50 years (i.e., the satellite record) paints a strikingly consistent picture of a human intervention on our climate. We've observed many human fingerprints through the climate. I mention a few in another comment but a more comprehensive list is available at LINK
permalinkparent
[–]-spartacus- 26 points 6 hours ago
Piggy backing question, when we look back thousands to millions of years, how accurate is the climate data? What I mean is, it seems the one of the proponents of anthropological climate change seems to bethat global ttemperature cannot rise as quickly as it has without human intervention. Do we know the change from 3,403,407 BCE to 3,403,406 BCE? What about to 3,403,397? 3,303,407? What is accuracy in years for past climate data? Does it vary by methodology?
permalinkparent
Posted on 9/8/14 at 11:14 pm to Iosh
Meh I think he'd get owned. As does losh indicated from his lack of response to qualified rebuttals
Know what though? frick it lets tax everybody
Know what though? frick it lets tax everybody
Posted on 9/8/14 at 11:25 pm to ironsides
Posted on 9/8/14 at 11:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:What is "skeptical" work? This is the same subjective type of claim that Cook makes (nearly the exact inverse, in fact) and it's subject to the same boundary-setting problems. If you define "skeptical" very strictly, for instance, as papers that do not accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then those are going to be absent from the literature for reasons having nothing to do with politics: they're flat-out wrong. If you define "skeptical" very loosely, as any paper which reduces the estimated human impact on AGW, or moves a projection lower or father into the future, I can find you tons of papers. Otto et al 2013 have claimed ECS is 2.0°; Tung & Zhou 2013 claimed the AGW signal was only .8°/century because of AMOC; Meehl et al 2014 fiddled with their models to try and account for the hiatus and ended up reducing projections by 16%. And these are just papers I remember off the top of my head, usually from arguing with skeptics who saw them linked on a skeptic blog and get a bad case of single-study syndrome. But you get the idea.
"Mainstream" journals are politiced out of carrying any skeptical work, thereby eliminating any chance for appropriate discourse. Again, not remotely the behavior of true scientists.
The only way you could go about "proving" a condition like that is setting some precisely calibrated "middle" ground for a skeptic paper and then hunting for edge cases. (Or you could just go ahead and fit Lennart Bengtsson for a cross because of one ambiguous line in one referee's rejection of a paper none of us have read.)
This post was edited on 9/9/14 at 12:37 am
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News