4 ms·

Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complain

Do you have anything to say about the actual substance of the complaint? Are you denying that the paper is based on flawed data? Have you even read the complaint? You can attack the organization all you like, but you havent actually shown that the complaint is unjustified.

fzeroracer 8y ago
So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  You seem very angry about this. Here's what we know: The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1] The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2] Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing. "Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends." "After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month." "correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997." "This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)." "The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data." Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it? [1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/image_thumb-85.png?w=765&h=774 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/... [2] http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16 http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    I have no intention of debating with someone who has already misrepresented the debate once, especially someone that refuses to link or share a credible resource. As far as I have searched, every single link 'debunking' this study is coming from sites that deliberately peddle fake information such as Breitbart. I have debated and dealt with far too many climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing.
    - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
      I demonstrated that the paper shows a long term trend based on the data from a weather station. I also showed you that the operators of the weather station explicitly say that the data should not be used to interpret long term trends. All you have done is launch ad hominem attacks, you have not addressed the issue itself in any of your posts.
    - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
      "climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing. " This is where you got me badly wrong. I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation. I think there's a wider discussion to have here about whether disinformation is OK if it's done with noble intentions, and only those spreading disinformation with malicious intent should be censored. Or should we find all disinformation campaigns equally repugnant?
      - colordrops 8y ago
        That is a very good question. Many seem to think the Russia investigation is ok even if there is nothing to be found because the intentions are to take down trump. I've had many debates with friends where I pinned them down and they finally admitted there is no direct evidence of collusion with Russia, and they admit that it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter. I'm a progressive and despise Trump, but these dishonest tactics only do harm to the cause. Same goes for the anti-anti-vaxxer campaign. It's obvious to most educated people that vaccines are a good thing, but to the uneducated, they see through all the propaganda for vaccines and it backfires because they end up trusting the establishment even less. Seeing everything as a team sport ends up with each side using any tactic, no matter how dishonest, to win the game.

fzeroracer 8y ago

So it's gaslighting, then? Why in the hell should I believe reporting from an organization whose entire stated purpose is to spread FUD and has knowingly in the past lied about the various points it's attempted to raise? If the paper is based off of flawed data, then I assume you can find an actual credible source willing to address this. If you can give me a credible source by all means I would be happy to admit I'm wrong. What you've given me is trash disguised as something credible. Especially since in your original post you implied that they were a climate change authority. There's a lot of bullshit that I try to ignore, but I expect better than that.

SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
You seem very angry about this. Here's what we know: The paper compares temperature data primarily from a single weather station 'El Verde', starting in 1978. [1] The operators of the weather station say themselves that the data is unreliable, that papers have already drawn erroneous conclusions based on it, and that it shouldn't be used for calculating long term trends. [2] Here's a few quotes from [2], but please read the whole thing. "Subsequent manipulations make the EVFS record less valuable for interpreting long term trends." "After September 1992, recorded maximum temperatures increased substantially at this station, certainly as a result of the instrumentation changes that took place in that month." "correction ceased to be applied to these maximum temperature data in 1997, and as a result, the EVFS maximum temperature record (LUQ data set 16) showed an abrupt increase in maximum temperature in 1997." "This partially corrected data set is the one we made accessible to people on our web site and through ClimDB until Feb 2014. At least one paper has reached erroneous conclusions about long term trends based on these data (Huey et al. 2009)." "The differences in instrumentation have introduced differences in the data between these two periods, and treating them as a single data set misrepresents the data." Knowing this, I think it's fair to say that any data prior to 1997 is invalid. Now take the graph in [1] and disregard 1997 backwards, and it paints an entirely different picture doesn't it? [1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/image_thumb-85.png?w=765&h=774 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/... [2] http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16 http://luq.lternet.edu/data/luqmetadata16
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  I have no intention of debating with someone who has already misrepresented the debate once, especially someone that refuses to link or share a credible resource. As far as I have searched, every single link 'debunking' this study is coming from sites that deliberately peddle fake information such as Breitbart. I have debated and dealt with far too many climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing.
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    I demonstrated that the paper shows a long term trend based on the data from a weather station. I also showed you that the operators of the weather station explicitly say that the data should not be used to interpret long term trends. All you have done is launch ad hominem attacks, you have not addressed the issue itself in any of your posts.
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    "climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing. " This is where you got me badly wrong. I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation. I think there's a wider discussion to have here about whether disinformation is OK if it's done with noble intentions, and only those spreading disinformation with malicious intent should be censored. Or should we find all disinformation campaigns equally repugnant?
    - colordrops 8y ago
      That is a very good question. Many seem to think the Russia investigation is ok even if there is nothing to be found because the intentions are to take down trump. I've had many debates with friends where I pinned them down and they finally admitted there is no direct evidence of collusion with Russia, and they admit that it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter. I'm a progressive and despise Trump, but these dishonest tactics only do harm to the cause. Same goes for the anti-anti-vaxxer campaign. It's obvious to most educated people that vaccines are a good thing, but to the uneducated, they see through all the propaganda for vaccines and it backfires because they end up trusting the establishment even less. Seeing everything as a team sport ends up with each side using any tactic, no matter how dishonest, to win the game.