Okay, I’ll try it your way.
Please, shut the fuck up already.
But as you expect the opposite – and would be unsurprised by cooling followed by no further warming, and would say it’s entirely consistent with your predictions – then why are you saying that you predict warming? Far from predicting a warming “stairway” of AGW, you simply predict that temperatures may well get no warmer, and may get a bit cooler.
If some poster – you or anyone else, I’m not picky – wants to make a prediction about warming that would be falsified by a long enough stretch of time without warming, then I’d of course respond differently. But so long as you don’t limit yourself to predictions about warming – stairway or otherwise – then why should I?
Again, if you’d never replied to Scylla’s post, I’d never have replied to yours. I don’t see that it’s cowardice for me to reply to the point you made rather than the point you should have stuck to addressing.
Jeez, I wonder why? After all, the people who get this unofficial, unprepared data are oh so fucking intellectually honest with it, aren’t they? Yes, as a matter of fact, I am angry, why do you ask?
Look, Brazil, if you listen to some mainstream media outlets, you could get the idea that there is actually real suppression of data, or at least that the scientists are lazy. If you listen to what they actually have to say, however, you get a very different story. I mean, for fuck’s sake, 58 FOIA REQUESTS is not an insubstantial amount of paperwork! And then you get crap like Climategate, where their private messages to each other are leaked, twisted, and taken way out of context, to the degree where the only way to make the message more pervertedly intellectually dishonest would be to just snip single words from emails and chain them together to make new sentences!
And then you wonder why these scientists are “deleting and suppressing information”. Why you have the head of the project advocating people just deleting their emails. Because other people were assholes, that’s why!
Look, lemme see if I can analogize this. Imagine you (in this case Michael Mann) work an office job, running spreadsheets collecting data on the real estate market or something like that. In the same office complex, you have a coworker (Stephen McIntyre) who does not trust you, and at the same time has a vested financial and personal interested in getting you fired and making sure your figures never see the light of day (perhaps because it reveals something about his recent housing deals that he’s not comfortable with). So what he does is, in every free moment of his time, he does his best to try and micromanage you. Because you follow office policy to allow others to review your work, it’s a no-brainer that he goes after that as a target. He starts constantly badgering you about your work, making a huge deal out of every single slight typo and calculation error in the work that was unfinished to begin with, and that you still had to clean up, and generally doing everything he can to discredit you and your work. Even when there’s nothing that he can find to object to, his constant badgering slows down your workflow immensely, and causes you to lose valuable time that you should be spending on your job.
Is it, at this point, reasonable to demand that he no longer have access to your rough drafts or your private emails? Is it perhaps reasonable to claim that his micromanaging of you is not only not helping, but making it almost impossible to actually do your job and get your project done? Who is being intellectually dishonest here? You, who decides that it’s time to stop this douchebag from sabotaging your work, or your coworker, who claims that he’s “simply trying to make sure that your work ends up good”?
Yep, because some assholes took a quote or two out of context, clearly there has been some foul play. Never mind that three independent investigations from high-clout organizations determined that the only mistake that the researchers had made was to not bow to the FOIAs sooner, and that there was no evidence of cherry-picking, filtering, or any other such biases.
:smack:
What you said in your first sentence is simply false. There is no attempt to suppress, trim, or cherry-pick data. This has been verified by three major independent sources. God dammit, when I posted “I’ll be frank here: the fact that anyone is giving this garbage a second look is simply offensive,” I was being fucking serious. Your stupidity offends me. Please, PLEASE stop being stupid soon.
There’s a classic example of this in Bret Stephens’ column today in the Wall St. Journal.
After deriding climate change proponents as being members of a “religion”, he says this:
“So what to make of the U.N.'s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty?”
Dunno Bret, I always thought a key characteristic of religion was that it was authoritative with no room for doubt and uncertainty. Doubt and uncertainty on the other hand are typical of science, which supports well-established theories based on evidence but rejects dogmatic certainty, especially on detailed predictions.
If there’s one matter on which I am (relatively) dogmatically certain, it’s that woo and pseudo-science promoters who accuse their opponents of being religious have an astounding lack of self-awareness and a curious self-loathing (since most woo-ists are quite religious, how is it that accusing others of the same tendency is considered the worst insult in your arsenal?).
TOWP, FYI: you repeatedly show yourself as totally unable to comprehend both science and reason. Sometimes it’s better to just shut up than to continue spouting bullshit and inaneness
I already said this, I do not say that, stop with your pathetic out of place straw men. And look at what BEST and the scientists are saying about the continuing warming and how cycles can mislead many to claim otherwise.
[Of course the Gobbledygooker 2.0 translated the TOWP screed as “yes, I’m denying the march of time and ignoring what scientists actually said”]
The amazing thing is, this is the exact same approach I use in other contexts, and it doesn’t draw this response: people make predictions, and I ask what would and wouldn’t falsify 'em; I then draw conclusions accordingly, replying with statements that don’t similarly provoke insults or seem to strike a nerve.
Someone a little while back alluded to the smoking-and-cancer link; I asked for falsifiable predictions at the time, got 'em, and watched as the results unsurprisingly piled in. I’ve done likewise with claims by white supremacists, by astrology buffs, by folks predicting movie sequels and pennant races; why should this be different?
It is different because **you **make it so, we already supplied the cites and confirmation by BEST and what independent statisticians said on this matter, their conclusion remains, it is dishonest to still claim that the earth is not warming.
That you are not accepting the evidence should make you wonder, but we already know that you have a blind spot here.
Incidentally I also pointed at evidence of how the probabilities of getting hurt by cancer from smoking are still less than the ones the climate scientists found on the predicted unwelcome effects of a doubling or tripling of CO2 in the atmosphere, meaning that we should actually be more active on avoiding that probability than the efforts we do against smoking. But that was deftly dismissed by you.
If you were this mindlessly incessant about it, then people were just being nice.
Either you’ll get what you want or you won’t. Badgering on without end just reveals you as a dick. You’ve already said that you have what you want, and you appear to have nothing else to contribute to the discussion than this one note about falsifiability. I’m just not at all clear on what else you could want but to troll.
I have a falsifiable prediction: The Other Waldo Pepper will not stop posting about this very same tired issue.
I noticed the same sort of thing a couple of years ago, after the first set of data and emails was released, after it was sorted out that they were real emails, not some huge joke.
Rather than discuss the emails, the “conversations” were mostly acrimony and insults from the “alarmists”, directed at the “deniers”, with no middle ground allowed. From another topic here:
I admit I was a bit shocked to discover that when simple scientific questions were brought up, predicated by real problems in research, rather than educate and inform, the “warmists” spewed forth invective and made everything personal. It really seemed like a religion, and one that didn’t like having it’s secret documents spread around the internet.
Much like this topic, where the last thing being discussed is the actual pilfered documents and emails.
I put “deniers”, “warmists” and “alarmists” in quotes because I got all those terms from what other people were saying.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that yes, some researchers attempted to delete and suppress information, but under the circumstances it was justified?
Or are you flat out denying that it happened?
You seem to be saying both things, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
The easiest way to handle it would be to just copy the entire computer drive and hand it over.
In that case, I would hand over copies of all my files to him, and advise him that if he has questions or concerns, he can take them up with the boss. I certainly would not try to hide information from him.
Anyway, I think a better analogy would be a prosecutor who is constantly being pestered by defense counsel for information and case files; defense counsel is going to scrutinize the prosecutor’s and police work to try to find anything to get his client off the hook; anything to embarrass the police or prosecutor; etc.
Even if the prosecutor KNOWS that the defendant is guilty, it still would be inappropriate for him to withhold the case file from the defendant’s attorney. He must turn it over and if he fails to do so, it’s a serious ethical transgression. He is not required to explain himself to or take instructions from the defense attorney; he just needs to turn over the file.
As science writer Peter Hadfiel reported, he was concerned about the emails at first and like many reporters back then they did actually condemn the scientists at first, unfortunately for the deniers the context was found almost immediately by doing the unfair thing: by checking the record, what FX and their ilk miss is that climategate actually was the “lets burn our bridges to the serious reporters” moment by the deniers.
The burn many reporters like Hadfield felt was enough to make him and other reporters realize that they should not take their cherry picked emails again.
So now, the usual deniers like FOX, WUWT and The Daily Fail are still at it, but even with more caveats, other more respected sources are even ignoring this much to the chagrin of not really a master mind FX.
Of course the latest climategate II turkey shows that the intention from the deniers is to get clips of the emails out of context and publish the hell out of them with a misleading context.
I certainly wonder whether you predict further warming, or whether cooling followed by no further warming would be perfectly consistent with your predictions. If the latter, then I wonder whether – and why – you disagree with the scientists and statisticians; if the former, then I wonder why you’ve stated the opposite.
Do you mean I asked for predictions going forward, rather than those made in the past? Folks who, like me, agree on the smoking-and-cancer link can of course offer predictions about the future rather than resting on past laurels; we don’t say that all further studies until the end of time may well show no correlation or a negative one.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Either you’ll get what you want or you won’t. Badgering on without end just reveals you as a dick. You’ve already said that you have what you want, and you appear to have nothing else to contribute to the discussion than this one note about falsifiability.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not contributing the one note about falsifiability, as I grant that GIGO’s prediction is falsifiable. I’m instead noting a completely different point: that his falsifiable prediction is perfectly consistent with temperatures declining and then never again rising back up to current levels, which is why I object to calling it “warming”.
Of course that is a strawman, you are still making a mountain out of a molehill. And it is still not to the point of this discussion.
You are still just cowardly avoiding dealing with the report that showed it is dishonest to claim that there is no warming.
I want to clarify what you mean when you use the word “warming”, since you’re the one using it in this thread. How does it involve a strawman to ask the actual poster what he means by a particular term?
I don’t believe that anyone disputes there’s been warming (for any known definition of “warming”) from a given date until now. I merely ask what “warming” you predict going forward, as you’ve previously predicted that the temperature may well cool back down before never again returning to current levels.
By the way, would you mind linking to this post? I would be curious to see it.
The Gobbledygook 2.0 is not much help here.
As per the OP, go somewhere else for a discussion, this is [del]abuse[/del] about Climategate.
Sure.
It goes on from there, but that’s a pretty good starting point: besides not warming, it would need to cool down to some point X – such that cooling down to some point A or B or C wouldn’t do it, even if it never again rose back up to where we are now.
(Keep reading that thread and he soon clarifies that even said drop to '70s levels would only falsify part of the theory; the whole thing would go out the window if even more cooling resulted, but he’s coy about exactly how much more – short of a second ice age – would suffice.)