3 ms·

All you've done is double down on the ad hominem, then attack her husband, then address something irrelevant. The complaint here isn't related to reproducibilit

by nvm0n2 3y ago

All you've done is double down on the ad hominem, then attack her husband, then address something irrelevant. The complaint here isn't related to reproducibility, it's the reef scientist's own data that shows a huge rebound.

defrost 3y ago
Ad hominem is attacking the person. Let's be clear, I'm attacking their work - Jo Nova's blog contains nothing of significance that hasn't been debunked, her husband's C02 spreadsheet work has been grossly overstated and nothing seems to have come from his claims to have had a major breakthrough with "it's totally not Fourier theory", and the claim that "reef scientist's own data that shows a huge rebound" isn't sound.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  At no point have you attacked her work. You haven't even discussed it, you just keep asserting that everything she or her husband does is shit without backing that up. You literally started by saying Jo Nova is a liar and then immediately claimed that's not an ad hominem! Every reply of yours has been about the names of the people who commissioned the survey. There's been nothing about the actual results of the poll itself, nothing about the reef measurements. This sub-thread is really the definition of ad hominem. If you wanted to discuss the actual state of the reefs or the science we'd be discussing that. Instead you got triggered by the name Jo Nova which isn't even in the part of the article I quoted. Great job, you continue to debunk your own position and call attention to how apparently impossible it is to refute theirs.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > You literally started by saying Jo Nova is a liar Nope, I said she bends the truth savagely by using all the tricks in the "How to lie with statistics" book - classic misrepresentation of data stuff. I also said that she is widely known for this (also true) and pretty much every post she has ever produced has been debunked (also true). I stand by all of that - I suggest you check that out for yourself. While we're on that, Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? is another cut from the same cloth. No matter how much you spit and splutter the facts remain, these are people that don't do science in good faith, they shill for the Koch aligned "think tanks" and haven't yet hit a goal.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

Ad hominem is attacking the person. Let's be clear, I'm attacking their work - Jo Nova's blog contains nothing of significance that hasn't been debunked, her husband's C02 spreadsheet work has been grossly overstated and nothing seems to have come from his claims to have had a major breakthrough with "it's totally not Fourier theory", and the claim that "reef scientist's own data that shows a huge rebound" isn't sound.

nvm0n2 3y ago
At no point have you attacked her work. You haven't even discussed it, you just keep asserting that everything she or her husband does is shit without backing that up. You literally started by saying Jo Nova is a liar and then immediately claimed that's not an ad hominem! Every reply of yours has been about the names of the people who commissioned the survey. There's been nothing about the actual results of the poll itself, nothing about the reef measurements. This sub-thread is really the definition of ad hominem. If you wanted to discuss the actual state of the reefs or the science we'd be discussing that. Instead you got triggered by the name Jo Nova which isn't even in the part of the article I quoted. Great job, you continue to debunk your own position and call attention to how apparently impossible it is to refute theirs.
- defrost 3y ago
  > You literally started by saying Jo Nova is a liar Nope, I said she bends the truth savagely by using all the tricks in the "How to lie with statistics" book - classic misrepresentation of data stuff. I also said that she is widely known for this (also true) and pretty much every post she has ever produced has been debunked (also true). I stand by all of that - I suggest you check that out for yourself. While we're on that, Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? is another cut from the same cloth. No matter how much you spit and splutter the facts remain, these are people that don't do science in good faith, they shill for the Koch aligned "think tanks" and haven't yet hit a goal.