aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 12, 2009 12:39:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 12, 2009 13:21:58 GMT
Instead of psycho-analising us and abusing us as "zombies" perhaps Ben Goldacre should start reading some temperature data and about how the tree-ring proxy data has been fiddled then he would be a little better informed.
All this is laid out on this blog and elsewhere. The man is a zealot and a preacher not a statistical analyst. My reply to him would be "It's all about the numbers, stupid!"
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 12, 2009 13:56:40 GMT
He's not a zealot, though; if anything, he's an anti-zealot. And the Zombie thing is about arguments refusing to lie down, even when killed.
(By the way, have you got an alert? You answered very quickly.)
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 12, 2009 15:00:01 GMT
It's a slur, Aubrey, the "zombie", just like the PM's "flat-earther".
When people do not use data to prove their case but resort instead to psychologistic rants, name-calling and cute photos of polar bears you should wonder about the robustness of their case, Aubrey. These are signs of desperation.
If people remain unconvinced of AGW (don't forget the "A" part, aub) it is because the case has not been made convincingly. The numbers just don't support it. And that message is getting through, at last.
Have a look at the neat gizmo graphic in my "How to create a false rising trend" thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 12, 2009 15:09:08 GMT
No, I don't have an "alert", aubrey. What's that? I just happened to look when I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 12, 2009 16:46:42 GMT
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Dec 12, 2009 18:46:59 GMT
so many climate threads, marchesa - where to put this link for you? clive james has a 'point of view' on climate change - starts 50sec in. he's been called a 'flat earther' 'denier' etc which doesn't bother him a bit. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6vln/A_Point_of_View_11_12_2009/btw, how do you post links so you get the natty little screen image instead of having to click a link? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 13, 2009 1:11:45 GMT
When you get the address ending with jpg, or similar, for your image you highlight it and then click on the little "picture" icon 4th from bottom left in the display above the reply box. It puts these brackets around your link [ img ] .... [ /img ]
If you want to insert a YouTube video into your text enter its address, highlight, then click on the YouTube icon above (it is only visible at the "modify" stage).
I heard Clive James talking a while ago about "climatechangeism". He is a good exponent of the sceptical viewpoint and he is very popular. That helps! Thanks for the link.
I don't know any exponents of AGW who don't basically insult your intelligence with unprovable predictions and statements and resort to ad hominem attacks. Has no-one else noticed this? It used to be only crazy folk who insisted "The End of the World is Nigh". What has reduced people to such a state of gulliblility? Is it that they are basically illiterate in any scienfic discipline at all these days? I think that must be the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 13, 2009 22:11:19 GMT
should start reading some temperature data and about how the tree-ring proxy data has been fiddled then he would be a little better informed. Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 13, 2009 22:33:31 GMT
Because the decline in temperature as derived tree ring data from 1961 onwards means the WHOLE of the tree ring proxy data is called into question. If 1961 onwards does not tally with the instrumental record why should anyone trust the pre-1961 data either?
That's why the "trick" is important.
Is this too abstruse for you to grasp, specialpeople?
I think any averagely intelligent man in the street could understand that point, as well as the odd woman, like me.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 13, 2009 22:36:36 GMT
Since YOU find this "spurious artefact of the tree ring data" so convincing, specialpeople, perhaps you could explain to us precisely what that "artefact" is ? Here's the "decline" (green line) in Briffa's post 1961 tree-ring data you have to explain away whilst demonstrating the previous centuries' data are not equally defective. I always think pictures are so helpful, don't you?  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 15, 2009 23:23:48 GMT
Still waiting to hear the specialpeople explain about that spurious modern “artefact” that prevented trees from being treemometers in 1961.
It's inviting trouble to pretend to understand stuff when you don't, specialpeople.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 16, 2009 0:37:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 16, 2009 0:49:14 GMT
I wouldn't count of making a career in palaeo-dendro-climatology if I were you, specialpeople.
The same things that makes tree rings poor thermometers after 1961 made them poor thermometers BEFORE.
Is suspension of commonsense necessary for being a global warmer or is it sufficient, or is it both?
|
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 16, 2009 10:33:04 GMT
Where were these graphs published? The graphs you posted are meaningless, they have no context let alone explaination as to what all the pretty colours are - could be the price of fish |
|
