3 ms·

So you make a dubious and suspect, wrong, claim, and you refuse to retract it. So now we know. So I guess this is not a mistake, you have a conclusion and you'r

So you make a dubious and suspect, wrong, claim, and you refuse to retract it. So now we know. So I guess this is not a mistake, you have a conclusion and you're ok with misdirecting people to show you're "really right". Got it. I'd ask you to just stop talking about science, but I guess that'd be too much to ask ?

mrow84 10y ago
>> So you make a dubious and suspect, wrong, claim, and you refuse to retract it. So now we know. So I guess this is not a mistake, you have a conclusion and you're ok with misdirecting people to show you're right. Got it. I have to say, your devastating critique really has shown me a thing or two! I'm envious of how capably you marshalled the evidence in support of your arguments, and of the way in which you picked apart my every point. It must give you a sense of pride, knowing what you do with such clarity. >> I'd ask you to just stop talking about science, but I guess that'd be too much to ask ? I can only say that in future I'll try to follow your example, and limit my discussions to subjects about which I have the same level of confidence as you displayed today.
sethrin 10y ago
Your refusal to engage with the points enumerated by the parent poster erases your credibility. Dunning and Kruger are vindicated once more.
- candiodari 10y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say ... there is a simple reason I refuse to engage. Here's how, at an extremely high level, IPCC predictions work : A = state of the world (co2 levels, climate, current avg temp, ...) "input" so to speak B = temperature anomaly ("output" of the model) C = sea level rise, and other consequences IPCC models work like this A -> B -> C. They got B wrong. Therefore arguing about how C is really matching quite well is both wrong and, frankly, somewhere between very misguided and dishonest. This is also a fraudulent way people sometimes defend their models, especially in economics. Sure they got the thing they predicted itself wrong, but out of the 100 things they made claims about using their faulty model, they got one or two right ! See ! They were right all along ... Particularly bad examples are the many economic models that predicted productivity recovery since, oh, since 2000 at least. They got everything wrong, but they got, oh, say they got the gold price rise right they predicted due to their prediction of rapid inflation. Unfortunately there was a gold price rise, yes, no rapid inflation was observed though. If you believe models like that you will die a poor man. Unfortunately, no, they weren't. It is perfectly normal for a few out of large amounts of claims to hit bullseye, even if they're based on entirely wrong data. Obviously their results, even the ones that -so far- hit bullseye, have zero predictive power.
  - sethrin 10y ago
    If you understood the models well enough to critique them you would be a scientist in that field, and presumably your criticism would be in the form of an academic paper. However, you are merely a pseudointellectual science denier with an exaggerated sense of your own expertise.

mrow84 10y ago

>> So you make a dubious and suspect, wrong, claim, and you refuse to retract it. So now we know. So I guess this is not a mistake, you have a conclusion and you're ok with misdirecting people to show you're right. Got it. I have to say, your devastating critique really has shown me a thing or two! I'm envious of how capably you marshalled the evidence in support of your arguments, and of the way in which you picked apart my every point. It must give you a sense of pride, knowing what you do with such clarity. >> I'd ask you to just stop talking about science, but I guess that'd be too much to ask ? I can only say that in future I'll try to follow your example, and limit my discussions to subjects about which I have the same level of confidence as you displayed today.

sethrin 10y ago

Your refusal to engage with the points enumerated by the parent poster erases your credibility. Dunning and Kruger are vindicated once more.

candiodari 10y ago
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say ... there is a simple reason I refuse to engage. Here's how, at an extremely high level, IPCC predictions work : A = state of the world (co2 levels, climate, current avg temp, ...) "input" so to speak B = temperature anomaly ("output" of the model) C = sea level rise, and other consequences IPCC models work like this A -> B -> C. They got B wrong. Therefore arguing about how C is really matching quite well is both wrong and, frankly, somewhere between very misguided and dishonest. This is also a fraudulent way people sometimes defend their models, especially in economics. Sure they got the thing they predicted itself wrong, but out of the 100 things they made claims about using their faulty model, they got one or two right ! See ! They were right all along ... Particularly bad examples are the many economic models that predicted productivity recovery since, oh, since 2000 at least. They got everything wrong, but they got, oh, say they got the gold price rise right they predicted due to their prediction of rapid inflation. Unfortunately there was a gold price rise, yes, no rapid inflation was observed though. If you believe models like that you will die a poor man. Unfortunately, no, they weren't. It is perfectly normal for a few out of large amounts of claims to hit bullseye, even if they're based on entirely wrong data. Obviously their results, even the ones that -so far- hit bullseye, have zero predictive power.
- sethrin 10y ago
  If you understood the models well enough to critique them you would be a scientist in that field, and presumably your criticism would be in the form of an academic paper. However, you are merely a pseudointellectual science denier with an exaggerated sense of your own expertise.