6 ms·

Here's a good one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown

Here's a good one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-... 44 Climate Models all fighting to out-panic one another, not a single one guessing low enough to predict the actual values for 2012 (when it seems the dataset in question ended) ... and a seemingly more reputable one showing roughly the same thing: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator...

Roodgorf 11y ago
The first graph on that second link is a bit confusing and seems pretty disingenuous. It has the "observations" region stretching to 2050. The rest of the article seems much more factual and interesting, but why start with something so misleading if your supposed goal is to debunk misleading projections?
cholantesh 11y ago
I wouldn't call a paper whose lead author is a well-established denier with no scientific training (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Visc...), and which is co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) particularly reputable.
- marcus_holmes 11y ago
  ad-hominem. Who cares who wrote it, what does it say?
  - cholantesh 11y ago
    Really? You think it doesn't matter that the primary author on a paper about climate science doesn't even have an undergraduate-level education in the subject? That the second one credited has a history of accepting large sums of money to write papers endorsing spurious claims DIRECTLY RELATING to climate change?
    - Aloha 11y ago
      Are you going to tell me that every person who has ever written a paper on computer science needs to have a degree in it? While I won't question this guys qualification might be questionable - making a blanket statement that someone must be specifically educated in a subject to write a good paper on it is specious.
      - cholantesh 11y ago
        How often does it happen that a layman manages to get published in a well-regarded journal? Out of all the papers that laypeople publish anywhere, how many survive scrutiny from experts in the paper's problem domain? And out of those, how many that actively seek to overturn a paradigm succeed? Based on this metric alone, it is highly unlikely that Monkcton is qualified to discuss climate change, and as it happens, his published work tends to be published by fairly obscure journals whose standards of review are questionable, and when they pass the desks of career climatologists, the result is generally unfavourable to him.
        Aloha 11y ago
        There is a difference between "layman", "well known expert in their field", "so and so with a degree in $field" "well known expert in their field with a masters in $field" If you read my reply, I don't question the guys qualifications, I was objecting to the blanket statement of "you must have a degree in $field, to be expert" - many papers in technology, are written by people without degrees in that field.
        cholantesh 11y ago
        I did read your reply; I'm saying that in the aggregate, a credible paper is unlikely to be written by someone without formal schooling in the relevant field. Further, technology is applied science - it is not unlikely that one can become an expert through informal and professional practice. Your previous comment was about computer science, which is not necessarily the same thing, and which is closer to mathematics than anything else. Climatology is concerned primarily with physics and chemistry, but also geology and in some cases, paleontology. Most of these fields share little in common with pure maths or engineering. The comparison, then is not totally valid. The basic training you require to be a competent scientist is hard to come by outside of academia. The actual work of science tends to be done in a laboratory. It's highly, unlikely, then, that someone who has put in the years (often decades) of work in academia to be on par with a hobbyist, whatever that may look like in this context.
  - thaumaturgy 11y ago
    Ad hominem fallacy fallacy: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html Pointing out that someone is not trustworthy when considering whether or not to trust their conclusions is not ad-hom.
    - Zuider 11y ago
      Attacking a persons 'trustworthiness' instead of dealing with their arguments and evidence is pretty much the dictionary definition of the ad-hominem diversion. It doesn't interest me to learn that he kicks cats or dresses in lingerie and calls himself Marjorie at the weekends. If you believe that he is wrong, then show where and how he is in error.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        You're right not to be intersted in whether he kicks cats or not when you're thinking about whether he's honest or not. But, when thinking about whether he's honest or not being given examples of previous dishonesty is relevant.
        Zuider 11y ago
        Just like the infamous Smathers campaign speech? http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000379;p=0 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to... "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]."
        cholantesh 11y ago
        No, because that was actually irrelevant. In this context, Soon's record within the scope of climate research is what's being scrutinized, not his personal life. If Soon's opponents were attacking his love of Dune or his tendency to eat falafel, there might be an analogue here.
  - arrrg 11y ago
    Neither you nor the person you are responding to probably has the requisite qualifications to actually tell … Judging something like this without relying on outside signals seems rather impossible and pointless if you are not, you know, an actual expert. No matter how much you want to believe you can be one about everything …
- Zuider 11y ago
  > co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) particularly reputable. Flagged for libel. It is one thing to argue a position you believe, it is quite another to smear another's character.
  - cholantesh 11y ago
    It wasn't libel the last time you brought it up and it isn't libel this time. Soon failed to disclose non-trivial amounts of funding that he received from parties who have a vested interest in deriding climate science. Given how often his work has failed to pass muster when scrutinized by climate scientists and skeptics, it is hard to fathom how any of this can amount tosimple incompetence.
    - Zuider 11y ago
      The article you linked to is almost comical in its petty malevolence, well beyond the point of self-satire. This kind of character assassination, however reprehensible, is ultimately irrelevant. If you believe Dr. Wei Hock Soon is wrong, then show where and how he is mistaken.
      - cholantesh 11y ago
        Climate scientists have been doing that for almost 25 years at this point, and Soon's response has pretty much been to complain that he's being bullied and that science is being politicised. I find that to be actually comical, almost as much as the presumption that an intelligent and intellectually honest person could do this for as long as Soon has. And that his association with political and industrial think tanks is a non-sequitur in this regard.
        Zuider 11y ago
        You jumped the shark a while back. I find it impossible to take what you write seriously any more. Like I said, comically malevolent.
themgt 11y ago
Do read this criticism of Roy Spencer's methods, which to me do not appear credible: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-wearier.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-we...

Roodgorf 11y ago

The first graph on that second link is a bit confusing and seems pretty disingenuous. It has the "observations" region stretching to 2050. The rest of the article seems much more factual and interesting, but why start with something so misleading if your supposed goal is to debunk misleading projections?

cholantesh 11y ago

I wouldn't call a paper whose lead author is a well-established denier with no scientific training (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Visc...), and which is co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) particularly reputable.

marcus_holmes 11y ago
ad-hominem. Who cares who wrote it, what does it say?
- cholantesh 11y ago
  Really? You think it doesn't matter that the primary author on a paper about climate science doesn't even have an undergraduate-level education in the subject? That the second one credited has a history of accepting large sums of money to write papers endorsing spurious claims DIRECTLY RELATING to climate change?
  - Aloha 11y ago
    Are you going to tell me that every person who has ever written a paper on computer science needs to have a degree in it? While I won't question this guys qualification might be questionable - making a blanket statement that someone must be specifically educated in a subject to write a good paper on it is specious.
    - cholantesh 11y ago
      How often does it happen that a layman manages to get published in a well-regarded journal? Out of all the papers that laypeople publish anywhere, how many survive scrutiny from experts in the paper's problem domain? And out of those, how many that actively seek to overturn a paradigm succeed? Based on this metric alone, it is highly unlikely that Monkcton is qualified to discuss climate change, and as it happens, his published work tends to be published by fairly obscure journals whose standards of review are questionable, and when they pass the desks of career climatologists, the result is generally unfavourable to him.
      - Aloha 11y ago
        There is a difference between "layman", "well known expert in their field", "so and so with a degree in $field" "well known expert in their field with a masters in $field" If you read my reply, I don't question the guys qualifications, I was objecting to the blanket statement of "you must have a degree in $field, to be expert" - many papers in technology, are written by people without degrees in that field.
        cholantesh 11y ago
        I did read your reply; I'm saying that in the aggregate, a credible paper is unlikely to be written by someone without formal schooling in the relevant field. Further, technology is applied science - it is not unlikely that one can become an expert through informal and professional practice. Your previous comment was about computer science, which is not necessarily the same thing, and which is closer to mathematics than anything else. Climatology is concerned primarily with physics and chemistry, but also geology and in some cases, paleontology. Most of these fields share little in common with pure maths or engineering. The comparison, then is not totally valid. The basic training you require to be a competent scientist is hard to come by outside of academia. The actual work of science tends to be done in a laboratory. It's highly, unlikely, then, that someone who has put in the years (often decades) of work in academia to be on par with a hobbyist, whatever that may look like in this context.
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  Ad hominem fallacy fallacy: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html Pointing out that someone is not trustworthy when considering whether or not to trust their conclusions is not ad-hom.
  - Zuider 11y ago
    Attacking a persons 'trustworthiness' instead of dealing with their arguments and evidence is pretty much the dictionary definition of the ad-hominem diversion. It doesn't interest me to learn that he kicks cats or dresses in lingerie and calls himself Marjorie at the weekends. If you believe that he is wrong, then show where and how he is in error.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      You're right not to be intersted in whether he kicks cats or not when you're thinking about whether he's honest or not. But, when thinking about whether he's honest or not being given examples of previous dishonesty is relevant.
      - Zuider 11y ago
        Just like the infamous Smathers campaign speech? http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000379;p=0 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to... "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]."
        cholantesh 11y ago
        No, because that was actually irrelevant. In this context, Soon's record within the scope of climate research is what's being scrutinized, not his personal life. If Soon's opponents were attacking his love of Dune or his tendency to eat falafel, there might be an analogue here.
- arrrg 11y ago
  Neither you nor the person you are responding to probably has the requisite qualifications to actually tell … Judging something like this without relying on outside signals seems rather impossible and pointless if you are not, you know, an actual expert. No matter how much you want to believe you can be one about everything …
Zuider 11y ago
> co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) particularly reputable. Flagged for libel. It is one thing to argue a position you believe, it is quite another to smear another's character.
- cholantesh 11y ago
  It wasn't libel the last time you brought it up and it isn't libel this time. Soon failed to disclose non-trivial amounts of funding that he received from parties who have a vested interest in deriding climate science. Given how often his work has failed to pass muster when scrutinized by climate scientists and skeptics, it is hard to fathom how any of this can amount tosimple incompetence.
  - Zuider 11y ago
    The article you linked to is almost comical in its petty malevolence, well beyond the point of self-satire. This kind of character assassination, however reprehensible, is ultimately irrelevant. If you believe Dr. Wei Hock Soon is wrong, then show where and how he is mistaken.
    - cholantesh 11y ago
      Climate scientists have been doing that for almost 25 years at this point, and Soon's response has pretty much been to complain that he's being bullied and that science is being politicised. I find that to be actually comical, almost as much as the presumption that an intelligent and intellectually honest person could do this for as long as Soon has. And that his association with political and industrial think tanks is a non-sequitur in this regard.
      - Zuider 11y ago
        You jumped the shark a while back. I find it impossible to take what you write seriously any more. Like I said, comically malevolent.

themgt 11y ago

Do read this criticism of Roy Spencer's methods, which to me do not appear credible: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-wearier.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-we...