spitfire 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2008 now for some fun stuff. I'm sure you have all heard how there is a supposedly causal relationship between increase in CO2 and increases in global temps. (notwithstanding the lag apparent in ice cores that shows temp increases before CO2 increases or the fact the even though CO2 continues to increase slightly global temp has remained relatively constant IE: NO WARMING for the past ten years and has actually cooled significantly in the past 18 months) Here is a graph providing the case for an alternative theory to explain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oli 1 Report post Posted September 10, 2008 Speaking of which, next Friday is Talk Like A Pirate Day. I expect everybody to observe it strictly, as in "Arrrrrrr! That Hamilton, he be a scurvy landlubber......." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spitfire 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Speaking of which, next Friday is Talk Like A Pirate Day.I expect everybody to observe it strictly, as in "Arrrrrrr! That Hamilton, he be a scurvy landlubber......." Arrrr right ye are matey eees a scuvey dog in a fast car! For just one more tiny bit of info that suggests to me we may not heard the whole story heres a bit from an article quoting geologist Don Easterbook (for those who need to, read his credentials here) http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resume.htm Global Warming Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spitfire 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 And a bit from Robert Giegengack (for those who need to, read his credentials here) http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/giegenga.html Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, a professor of Earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania, told phillymag.com that the history over the last 1 billion years on the planet reveals "only about 5 percent of that time has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles could support masses of permanent ice." Giegengack also noted that, "for most of Earth's history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 So what you're saying is:"A" causes "B". Therefore without "A", "B" is not possible. This is why I haven't bothered responding to you before this. All your posts are riddled with logical fallacies. Claiming an academic background is not enough when you come out with drivel such as this. Please, don't make a fool of yourself like this. It isn't necessary and it doesn't do you justice. The issue is simple and you understand it perfectly. If you discredit an academic because his background is other than GW, on what grounds are you not discredited? How are your "attempts to explain" any better than his "attempts to explain"? It is because your postion is extreme that you have so little to stand on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spitfire 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Here is a bit more and thats enough for today - now I have to get back to the rocks! "Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics at Mexico Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Actually, not. Just another dialectical pirouette. As Cav pointed, GW was tried to be refuted by means of an argumentum ad autoritas. That means resorting to the authority of somebody to enforce an opinion. It is a logical fallacy, of course, for no matter how important the authority quoted is, isthe logic reasoning which counts. However, in real life, authority has some weight. If Stephen Hawkins says something about naked singularities, I will tend to believe him more than if James Allen made the same comment. They quoted James Allen. When that was obvious, they resorted to yet another fallacy: argumentum ad hominem. It means attacking the person who utters the opinion instead of the opinion itself. Somehow, they tried to compare Cav's and Oli's qty of papers against the pulp guy. You may notice that the quantity and/or quality of papers are totally irrelevant, for no matter how many million papers the pulp guy issues, he will still be as qualified as me who only know about toilet paper. When that was refuted, it came a loop the loop of sorts: "bah, academic and scientific degrees are overrated". And then again "Oh, but I am a big important academic and I won't attack my colleagues". If you really want to argue about all this, my own humble non academic non scientific opinion is: as in all orders of life, you will find good academics and bad academics. Glad there are so many of them, so "consensus" plus time (yes, "consensus") is the way to elliminate the fringe theories from the working ones. You see any relevance in all this? Nope? Neither do I. Oh, but this thing I can promise: we will hear someone laughing. And come up with a non-sequitur (which means an argument that is not related to the matter at hand and does not actually rebute the proposed one). Argumental fallacies are things we should all learn from. (And yes, this post was a non-sequitur itself) The "argument" around here for GW has been based precisely on the authority of "experts" and "vast majorities" and "consensus". The "argument" around here to avoid opinions outside of GW has been personal attacks and discredit. It is fascinating to see how you clearly describe the modus operandi of the GW and still manage to blame others for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Ok guys, I'll try one more time. In brief: It is not possible for us to have a debate about GW. Whatever we have to say amounts to empty chatter. If you feel compelled to "act", my advice is to be cautious. I've been in academia a long, long time and have seen these things come a go before. Sure, TV and politicians don't always pay attention, but these fads pass on unfailingly. At your own risk and expense, then. At length: This is a forum for motorsport fans and, while F1 has an important technological component, we are (as a group) no different than soccer fans or equestrian fans. The knowledge required to have an educated discussion on the topic is lacking. We cannot evaluate the merits of a study nor of a scholar. To pretend otherwise is to fool ourselves. It is no surprise, then, that there is talk about "consensus" and the such. Unable to understand to topic ourselves, we transfer the responsibility to others. We use our fingers to count scientists and use this "knowledge" to wave a fist in someone else's face. Yet, how can we assess the expertise of others on a subject we don't have expertise on ourselves? By trusting who? On faith of what? I spend hours, days, weeks working over the contributions colleagues make in my field... in my field!!!! And you pretend to UNDERSTAND what? This lack of knowledge of the GW topic is only compounded by the lack of knowledge of academia and of the process of scientific inquiry itself. There seems to be no understanding of the complexity of pushing the limits of human understanding and of the difficulty involved in contributing to the literature. Somehow, there seems to be the belief that just as a journalist cranks article after article, an academic paper requires similar amount of insight and effort. It is no surprise, then, how easily an academic with +200 is pushed aside by motorsport fans. I have tried to convey to you some of the elements involved in academic publishing, of its shortcomings in both review of manuscripts and acceptance of the material that actually ends up in print. I have tried to convey to you that any investigative endeavour whatsoever relies on many, many assumptions and have warned you on how devastating wrong choices at this level can be. I have tried to convey to you that the excruciating process of discovery is of such proportion that it is no exaggeration to say that 99% of scientist must be wrong 100% of the time, for 1% of scientist to be right 0.001% of the time. I have tried to convey to you that to engage in any of these activities requires an exceptional degree of intellectual dedication. I have tried to convey to you the effect politics has on academia, how grants and jobs and promotions come to depend on governmental whims. But the posters of this thread continue to insists on a beauty contest forgetting that the best we could do here would be to start at the beginning (never at the conclusions) and acquire the expertise that scientists must obtain themselves. Some of you speak of academic arrogance and I cannot, really cannot, avoid cracking up at your sweet, infantile arrogance. Can anyone chat up on _your_ fields of expertise? Just pick it up and wage war? Ultimately, it doesn't matter if your are a surgeon, a construction worker, a fishmonger, or a lawyer. Folks outside of these professions cannot presume to show up and determine what is what because they wish to believe so. We would have more fortune on a topic like the moon landing "real or hoax"... did it ever happened? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spitfire 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Maure, Brilliant post, only too true. but still, we will talk here about what catches our attention won't we. Regardless of our experience or expertise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Of course we will and I smile in anticipation. Still, I like you guys and, thus, I contribute this time around with a word of caution. No more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Ok guys, I'll try one more time. Tbh I think this was really your first attempt at an honest post. Perhaps Andr Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 In brief:It is not possible for us to have a debate about GW. Whatever we have to say amounts to empty chatter. If you feel compelled to "act", my advice is to be cautious. I've been in academia a long, long time and have seen these things come a go before. Sure, TV and politicians don't always pay attention, but these fads pass on unfailingly. At your own risk and expense, then. Maure - could not agree more. Let me officially "un-blah" you I agree that caution is wise, but I would add that we must not stop questioning and challenging this and other issues. And Spitfire's latest posts have messed up my plans - just as I was planning where to moor my (yet to be acquired) speedboat when the seas all rise, it turns out we're now going into an ice age.... Bummer - there goes my beach-front property Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 ....prostitute-scientists are what I've been objecting to all this time. Aw that's a bit uncharitable, I mean they have to make a living too and the street corners on those science campuses can be very cold and lonely Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 [quote name='Murray Walker' post='266366' date='Sep 11 2008, 04:13 PM']I've published papers in reputable journals and I don't think it's as big an achievement as you make out.[/quote] There is too much delusion is your post to bother with anything other than laughter. You need to justify yourself and throw yet another one of those "vast majorities" your faith relies on. But that one comment about the papers you claim to have published is too damn hilarious to pass over. You just had to overdo it, didn't you. If you really had a single one, not two, but a single article published by any academic journal, forget a "reputable" one, you wouldn't be so flippant about it. It just shows you don't know what you are talking about _at_all_. To be honest, I doubt you've ever seen an academic journal in your entire life... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oli 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Please, don't make a fool of yourself like this. It isn't necessary and it doesn't do you justice.The issue is simple and you understand it perfectly. If you discredit an academic because his background is other than GW, on what grounds are you not discredited? How are your "attempts to explain" any better than his "attempts to explain"? It is because your postion is extreme that you have so little to stand on. Firstly, I am not discrediting anyone- I am merely saying that the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects is enough to qualify you as an expert is erroneous. If the individual argues the case well, then it doesn't matter either way; unfortunately many of the links posted in this thread are uncited and incomplete, usually due to time constraints since none of us have the time to read through all the originals. That's fair enough, and you can argue that that makes all those arguments irrelevant if you like, but I don't believe so. There is a suspension of disbelief in all science- any study I read (whether I'm an expert or not) could have made up its data. It happens every so often, which is why you look for corroborating studies. Those studies could of course all be equally wrong, but I would be surprised. Secondly, you don't have to be an expert to spot some of the basic errors in some of the studies posted here. When a study uses US temperature only to claim that the Earth is cooling then it's pretty easy to spot. At no time during the first 6 (at least) pages of the thread did I parade my scientific credentials. I just waded through the papers and picked out the errors. I find that interesting from an intellectual point of view. The rest is just people yelling at each other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Aw that's a bit uncharitable, I mean they have to make a living too and the street corners on those science campuses can be very cold and lonely Yeah. Well there are old men at my uni who teach girls alone in their pyjamas, in their bedrooms, while quaffing port. Some even talk openly of the erotic component of the student-master relationship. Nice work if you can get it! Strangely I've yet to find a girl who didn't enjoy it. There is too much delusion is your post to bother with anything other than laughter. You need to justify yourself and throw yet another one of those "vast majorities" your faith relies on.But that one comment about the papers you claim to have published is too damn hilarious to pass over. You just had to overdo it, didn't you. If you really had a single one, not two, but a single article published by any academic journal, forget a "reputable" one, you wouldn't be so flippant about it. It just shows you don't know what you are talking about _at_all_. To be honest, I doubt you've ever seen an academic journal in your entire life... OK Maure. Keep working hard on all those papers. Secondly, you don't have to be an expert to spot some of the basic errors in some of the studies posted here. Yup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Firstly, I am not discrediting anyone- I am merely saying that the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects is enough to qualify you as an expert is erroneous. Look at the post where I brought up this guy. Not a word about expertise. Just a call for you guys to discredit him and you all did. Why do you continue making things up? If the individual argues the case well, then it doesn't matter either way; unfortunately many of the links posted in this thread are uncited and incomplete, usually due to time constraints since none of us have the time to read through all the originals. That's fair enough, and you can argue that that makes all those arguments irrelevant if you like, but I don't believe so. There is a suspension of disbelief in all science- any study I read (whether I'm an expert or not) could have made up its data. It happens every so often, which is why you look for corroborating studies. Those studies could of course all be equally wrong, but I would be surprised.Secondly, you don't have to be an expert to spot some of the basic errors in some of the studies posted here. When a study uses US temperature only to claim that the Earth is cooling then it's pretty easy to spot. At no time during the first 6 (at least) pages of the thread did I parade my scientific credentials. I just waded through the papers and picked out the errors. I find that interesting from an intellectual point of view. The rest is just people yelling at each other. Sure, you are free to believe that you can just jump on it and have the capacity to do what takes a PhD and years of research for others to accomplish... while, simultaneously, discrediting a guy with +200 papers for being on a different field. My advice is that you write down your observations and submit them to a journal (Murray will advise on which is reputable). If nothing else, the process might be iluminating for you. OK Maure. Keep working hard on all those papers. You are embarrassed, of course, but come on, you must admit you overreached a bit there... ok, not a bit, _a_lot_. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oli 1 Report post Posted September 11, 2008 Look at the post where I brought up this guy. Not a word about expertise. Just a call for you guys to discredit him and you all did.Why do you continue making things up? I merely said that publishing papers per se doesn't make him correct. How is this so hard for you to grasp? Sure, you are free to believe that you can just jump on it and have the capacity to do what takes a PhD and years of research for others to accomplish... while, simultaneously, discrediting a guy with +200 papers for being on a different field. Yes, it takes years of research to figure out that the USA and the world are not the same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 12, 2008 I merely said that publishing papers per se doesn't make him correct. How is this so hard for you to grasp? Who said he was correct? And who used his curriculum to attempt to discredit him? Yes, it takes years of research to figure out that the USA and the world are not the same thing. Chip on the shoulder, my friend? Relax. I'll tell you what passes as a joke (in my circles). At a multidisciplinary conference, a panel discussion on "language and the brain" starts with brief statements. The first participant, a cognitive psychologist, explains how he designs artificial neural networks to simulate different aspects of processing. He elaborates on how ANNs work as universal function approximators so that, for example, perceptual signatures from acoustic sources can be associated with concepts, thereby providing diminutive working models that might not correspond to brain functioning but that show how the brain could process language. The second participant, a neurologist, explains how he uses neuroimaging to try to identify linguistic systems in the cortex. He elaborates on how, in some cases, it is possible to observe overlapping areas of activation in bilinguals that could correspond to each of the languages a subject knows. Results, he points out, are obscured by for example onset of acquisition. The third participant, a linguist, says no more than four words. "What is a noun?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cavallino 2 Report post Posted September 12, 2008 There is too much delusion is your post to bother with anything other than laughter. You need to justify yourself and throw yet another one of those "vast majorities" your faith relies on.But that one comment about the papers you claim to have published is too damn hilarious to pass over. You just had to overdo it, didn't you. If you really had a single one, not two, but a single article published by any academic journal, forget a "reputable" one, you wouldn't be so flippant about it. It just shows you don't know what you are talking about _at_all_. To be honest, I doubt you've ever seen an academic journal in your entire life... I have read a vast number of papers, and have freelanced for a couple of years as a technical editor - editing journal papers. I have lost count of the number of times I wondered how stuff like that warranted publication.. I think we all know who's overdone it. And Graham's statement about journals is quite accurate. Firstly, I am not discrediting anyone- I am merely saying that the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects is enough to qualify you as an expert is erroneous. If the individual argues the case well, Exactly, most of the links posted by Maure etc. are huge arguments from authority, so the relevant credentials are crucial. Sure, you are free to believe that you can just jump on it and have the capacity to do what takes a PhD and years of research for others to accomplish... while, simultaneously, discrediting a guy with +200 papers for being on a different field.My advice is that you write down your observations and submit them to a journal (Murray will advise on which is reputable). If nothing else, the process might be iluminating for you. How about he sends in his nice internet opinion piece to a journal, I'd put money on it getting chucked out, 200 papers on paper and pulp not withstanding. Who said he was correct? So his 200 papers don't make him correct? What do they make him? Why are those 200 papers in an unrelated field important. Do educate me please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted September 12, 2008 I have read a vast number of papers, and have freelanced for a couple of years as a technical editor - editing journal papers. I have lost count of the number of times I wondered how stuff like that warranted publication..I think we all know who's overdone it. And Graham's statement about journals is quite accurate. That you say you worked as an editor in a journal could be true (although it is very, very unlikely)... unless by "journal" you don't mean academic journal. But not being able to see through Murray is a dead giveaway that shows that you are as clueless as he is. It is truly fascinating how you folks pretend to know so much yet trip so easily over you own ignorance. Let's see, you must have a profession (presumably). Do you think posers and turists could fool you that easily? If they can, you suck at what you do. Exactly, most of the links posted by Maure etc. are huge arguments from authority, so the relevant credentials are crucial. And once again, you make a fool of yourself by not reading the entire thread. How about he sends in his nice internet opinion piece to a journal, I'd put money on it getting chucked out, 200 papers on paper and pulp not withstanding. Why should he send it anywhere? Are you saying that the GW bigmouths around here need to send their opinions to a journal or present "credentials" to go on and on about things they hardly understand? And if you are so keen on "credentials", where are yours? So his 200 papers don't make him correct? What do they make him? Why are those 200 papers in an unrelated field important. Do educate me please. And for the third time, you make a fool of yourself by not reading the entire thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oli 1 Report post Posted September 12, 2008 That post is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Not one word of it makes any sense at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AutoRacer5 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2008 Seems as though some have been lying this whole time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/16/do1610.xml From the article: surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maure 1 Report post Posted November 18, 2008 Yep. I read about it a few days back. Must have been just a mistake... or, perhaps, a sign of true desperation. There are bets on this, you know, whether the GW scare will fade away or go out with a bang as data continues to contradict their predictions of doom. If at least the planet were to benefit from all this nonsense. You know, benefit from honest concern. Unfortunately, huge amounts of money are simply being spent financing the careers of some and filling the pockets of many... doesn't Gore, for example, charge some 1/4 of a million dollars per conference? Guess who's paying for that... the joke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted November 18, 2008 So they are fiddling the figures (again). What a shocker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites