Comments on: Anti-Antiscience and Statistical Parlor Tricks

By: Stew Green

Stew Green — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:22 +0000

YES I second almost all the comments ..good to see real skeptics
- I have been sad to see that when it comes to Global warming many top US Skeptics throw all their principles away and suddenly come over all “True Believer” just like the UFO hunter’s, anti-anti-vaccine people with “confirmation bias”, “absolute certainty beyond evidence”, emotion, SHOUTING & namecalling etc.
with there own version of Dowsing which works, works, but cannot predict the climate any better than chance.
- I would love to see Steve McIntyre speak at TAM
- Such a strange story : Mad Mann at TAM 2013
- I hope that TAM will be the place that Mann will be questioned properly
- it is essential that Mann’s appearance is not completely controlled & scripted and that questions can be asked freely without having to be submitted for clearance before hand. That people should be able to ask him about his past predictions and should be able to ask to make firm predictions for the near future that can be tested by time.

By: Milwaukee Magician -- Great Scott

Milwaukee Magician -- Great Scott — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:28:54 +0000

I’m not a scientist, but I am a magician. I’ve attempted to follow this whole climate change thing for years and I’ve always felt there was something wrong with the science. Much like someone watching a skilled magician work, you know that something unseen is happening, but you don’t know what. If someone should shout out “I see the coin in his other hand”, I have two choices — open that hand and look a bit foolish, or create some misdirection and get rid of the coin in some way.

I would suggest that you have seen the coin in the other hand and I highly doubt that a scientist will willingly open up and admit to ‘trick’. That means there is some other misdirection going on to divert attention. What is that, I wonder?

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:01:03 +0000

But Earle, that linking doesn’t work if it gets moved to another topic, I don’t think…

What I like to do is (depending on the subjet) is either quote something, blockquote something bigger, or at least refer to both the person that said it, by name, and a little mention on what the topic is. For example, I think it’s pretty clear that I’m speaking on what you said about linking posts that may get deleted or moved or snipped. (Or at least clear to anyone that’s been reading this blog for a while!)

By: Earle Williams

Earle Williams — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:32:01 +0000

Re #58

Peter D. Tillman,

It is also very helpful to reference prior posts by linking to the URL for the comment, which is contained in the comment number at the right side of the comment header. Thus if the comment number gets changed, you are still linking directly to the comment.

To embed a comment link in your comment, simply follow these steps (for Internet Explorer 7):

1) Right-click on the comment number
2) Copy shortcut
3) Type your message
4) Click on the ‘Link’ button just above the comment text window
5) Paste in the URL in th epopup box (may need to allow popups)
6) Click OK in the popup window
7) Type whatever text you wish to appear in the link
8) Click on ‘/Link’ button just above text input window to close the link
9) Finish your comment and submit.

This doesn’t solve the issue but if most folks linked to comments it would help a lot. You can also quote portions of the comment to which you are responding to aid in clarity for other readers.

Hope this wasn’t too presumptuous,
Earle

By: Peter D. Tillman

Peter D. Tillman — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:03:09 +0000

#14, Steve:

It would be good practice to replace deleted posts with a placeholder, such as “post deleted by moderator”, to keep the post number-scheme intact. It’s annoying to refer back to a post & find its number has changed.

Thanks & cheers — Pete Tillman

Steve: It takes much longer to snip than to delete or move. I occasionally try to economize on my time. Readers can ask people to stay on topic as well. bender’s helpful that way.

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:44:41 +0000

Peirre review?

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:41:07 +0000

pier view

pier review

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:57:26 +0000

Climate science where every paper is pier reviewed. You disagree with the data? The methodology? The results? Take a long walk off a short pier. And thus pier review.

By: John F. Pittman

John F. Pittman — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:37:43 +0000

#52 I can’t remember the paper, perhaps I can look it up at home later. But, in biology and ecology a living organism or system will grow up to the limiting factor and beyond. This sets up the typical sinsoidal curve of populations.
It is strange to see all these negative feedbacks kick in everywhere except AGW. Imagine our sun without a negative feedback, it would get hotter and hotter until it consumed the earth or went nova. Thankfully even a suspended on-going nuclear bomb has some negative feedback.

By: Kenneth Fritsch

Kenneth Fritsch — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:41:07 +0000

Re: #52

Ultimately, the model is nothing more than hypothesis until the physiological basis for the alleged response is understood.

Re:#48

The best test would be to sample the same trees again some years later, as was done with the bristlecones. The fact that this apparently hasnt been done on a routine basis makes the validity of the models suspect.

The most disconcerting question then becomes: Why do we not see efforts in the climate science field to seriously pursue a better understanding of these obvious holes in the models.