6 ms·

The real answer is: Yes

by chrisb 17y ago

yters 17y ago
I guess anyone who hasn't checked the FOIA docs. Otherwise, I can't see how any intellectually honest person can. Just briefly skim README.txt in the documents folder if you are skeptical. It's the programmer's journal detailing all the atrocities he ran across as he reengineered the datasets and climate models.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  I have read the README.txt and I am not particularly surprised, nor should it shake anyone's belief in the consensus opinion. I guess if you're relatively uninformed and haven't been keeping up and you think in terms of "one line of evidence" then you might get a net negative opinion. But the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence. If a few turn up sour or turn out to be poorly supported, the scientific process is to discard them (and this happens all the time in every branch of science, it's why things move slowly in research) and move on with the remaining lines of evidence. This is the model that most types scientific research follow: gather data, extrapolate, gather data and discard data, extrapolate, refine. Consider this: a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself, are constantly digging at the IPCC. To the point of engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt. They've been at this for a few years now. At the same time, scientists have been checking and double checking results, throwing out bad data and challenging AGW models at every turn. What do you have so far? 1. An overhyped case of data smoothing and normalizing for a specific set of data. All of the original data is recoverable (claims it was "lost" were misinterpretations, big shock), all the operations are now public and seem relatively benign. 2. Some occasional errors in source validation (which evidence so far has only produced a few isolated cases of). This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. It means that people _are_ fact checking their sources. 3. A consensus that climate is going to get weirder before it gets warmer. This is the inevitable conclusion for any changing complex system: "It's complicated." Given the extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy, I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt in this regard. Who is paying them? The people with all the money are explicitly not happy about their findings. What's their agenda? Do you imagine them in a futuristic control center with C.H.A.O.S. uniforms, with Vega and M.Bison giving orders before they beat up married men and raise their children as assassins?
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > ...the consensus opinion... the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence... a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself... engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt... extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy... I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt... Who is paying them? ... Do you imagine them in a futuristic control center with C.H.A.O.S. uniforms, with Vega and M.Bison giving orders before they beat up married men and raise their children as assassins? Okay, see, this is it. People get completely and totally convinced and it becomes an identity issue. I excerpted you from above - you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. You don't need people with an agenda if there's true believers with their identity at stake - their identity as scientists or good people. The boring truth is what you happen to believe, the other side primarily consists of aggressive anti-climate people who also associate with international thieves, and how could the side you believe possibly be doing corrupt, despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? Ah, forget the misconduct, the whole thing is going to get get weirder before it gets warmer. Also - I'm a conservationist, for the record. I just think the whole damn thing is shameful.
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      > you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. While I might have been slightly sarcastic in my reply, I don't think I was attacking a straw man with the core of my argument. If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. The amount of invalidated evidence is dwarfed by the remainder. This is the same kind of phenomenon in human cognition that leads people to believe that plane travel is less safe than car travel. We learn to fear memorable stories (SCANDAL IN THE IPCC! FOX NEWS SPECIAL TONIGHT! likened unto PLANE HIJACKED WITH FLAMING DILDOS! TSA TO BAN FEMALE ORGASM IN AIRPORTS!) more than we fear the statistically backed realities. > despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? "Numerous" being "a handful" and "scientific misconduct" being "data smoothing" and "nasty emails." This is _all you have_. After years of digging, this is the sum total. And it's unsurprising that a few cases of this exist. I mean, even particle physics has its scandals and you wouldn't think those people were likely to go there. > Also - I'm a conservationist Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It's just a misleading kind of "argumentum ad populum" where centrism must be right because it appeals to the most people in a bar.

The real answer is: Yes

by chrisb 17y ago

The real answer is: Yes

yters 17y ago

I guess anyone who hasn't checked the FOIA docs. Otherwise, I can't see how any intellectually honest person can. Just briefly skim README.txt in the documents folder if you are skeptical. It's the programmer's journal detailing all the atrocities he ran across as he reengineered the datasets and climate models.

KirinDave 17y ago
I have read the README.txt and I am not particularly surprised, nor should it shake anyone's belief in the consensus opinion. I guess if you're relatively uninformed and haven't been keeping up and you think in terms of "one line of evidence" then you might get a net negative opinion. But the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence. If a few turn up sour or turn out to be poorly supported, the scientific process is to discard them (and this happens all the time in every branch of science, it's why things move slowly in research) and move on with the remaining lines of evidence. This is the model that most types scientific research follow: gather data, extrapolate, gather data and discard data, extrapolate, refine. Consider this: a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself, are constantly digging at the IPCC. To the point of engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt. They've been at this for a few years now. At the same time, scientists have been checking and double checking results, throwing out bad data and challenging AGW models at every turn. What do you have so far? 1. An overhyped case of data smoothing and normalizing for a specific set of data. All of the original data is recoverable (claims it was "lost" were misinterpretations, big shock), all the operations are now public and seem relatively benign. 2. Some occasional errors in source validation (which evidence so far has only produced a few isolated cases of). This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. It means that people _are_ fact checking their sources. 3. A consensus that climate is going to get weirder before it gets warmer. This is the inevitable conclusion for any changing complex system: "It's complicated." Given the extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy, I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt in this regard. Who is paying them? The people with all the money are explicitly not happy about their findings. What's their agenda? Do you imagine them in a futuristic control center with C.H.A.O.S. uniforms, with Vega and M.Bison giving orders before they beat up married men and raise their children as assassins?
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > ...the consensus opinion... the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence... a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself... engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt... extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy... I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt... Who is paying them? ... Do you imagine them in a futuristic control center with C.H.A.O.S. uniforms, with Vega and M.Bison giving orders before they beat up married men and raise their children as assassins? Okay, see, this is it. People get completely and totally convinced and it becomes an identity issue. I excerpted you from above - you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. You don't need people with an agenda if there's true believers with their identity at stake - their identity as scientists or good people. The boring truth is what you happen to believe, the other side primarily consists of aggressive anti-climate people who also associate with international thieves, and how could the side you believe possibly be doing corrupt, despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? Ah, forget the misconduct, the whole thing is going to get get weirder before it gets warmer. Also - I'm a conservationist, for the record. I just think the whole damn thing is shameful.
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. While I might have been slightly sarcastic in my reply, I don't think I was attacking a straw man with the core of my argument. If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. The amount of invalidated evidence is dwarfed by the remainder. This is the same kind of phenomenon in human cognition that leads people to believe that plane travel is less safe than car travel. We learn to fear memorable stories (SCANDAL IN THE IPCC! FOX NEWS SPECIAL TONIGHT! likened unto PLANE HIJACKED WITH FLAMING DILDOS! TSA TO BAN FEMALE ORGASM IN AIRPORTS!) more than we fear the statistically backed realities. > despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? "Numerous" being "a handful" and "scientific misconduct" being "data smoothing" and "nasty emails." This is _all you have_. After years of digging, this is the sum total. And it's unsurprising that a few cases of this exist. I mean, even particle physics has its scandals and you wouldn't think those people were likely to go there. > Also - I'm a conservationist Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It's just a misleading kind of "argumentum ad populum" where centrism must be right because it appeals to the most people in a bar.