The context is key, those corrections are normal and excellent science, the only reason that bit was made to sound like it was controversial (for what cause then?) was precisely to seed doubts on what what the scientists were doing, and there was no controversy on that, even less so after the BEST survey of those adjustments. Deniers adding it (and once again only by consulting denialist sites is that you would had concluded this was controversial) have no other reason to mention it other than to push a controversy or unnecessary doubts.
Again history does make a mockery of this point, people like Calendar and Plass never had an agenda or profited from the work they did showing that most scientists were wrong in assuming that the increase of human CO2 was going to be deal by nature and that there was nothing to worry about.
As you still ignore the salient points of what Oreskes said (and they are related to this tread BTW) your request here is silly.
This affirmation has no basis in reality, on the previous discussion I even cited the science that discredited your silly citation. It is you who has demonstrated to rely on denialist sources and ignore the science.
Only that I did quoted her before, so your excuses are getting silly.
It is the OP’s subject, stop hijacking this.
As pointed out before you ignored the citation I made to you and happily continue to ignore it, making others realize how you willfully skip information, first you quoted this:
The only published science paper they cite, independent from their own, says the opposite of what they claim.
And in this context this is like reporting that water is wet to an oceanographer, sorry, it is clear that the idea is to make others doubt for no good reason whatsoever.
Of course since denialist sites like to use that point, and no, they do not clarify it to then make it apparent that the point is really a silly one once the explanation is made; it is a tactic that depends on not finding an opponent in a discussion that is aware of it.
Nice that we agree that there are many corrections.
I don’t flatter myself that I can cast doubt on what scientists are doing. I have read the reviews and haven’t found them convincing to me.
The BEST survety surveyes the guys already agreeing with the corrections and not that many (basically none) who questioned them.
They had the non-nefarious agenda of showing the truth, they didn’t do it for kicks. They wanted to show the reality of CO2 increase and correct those who were mistaken, there’s the agenda: truth.
Interesting that you yourself mention that most scientists, long beofre denialists or big-oil money, thought something and were incorrect. I’m sure a poll would’ve shown large numbers against Plass’s stuff and maybe someone said “the consemsus says Plass is wrong”.
This of course doesn’t mean by any stretch that that majority of scientist weres stupid or ignorant.
Also, the fact that is the past the consensus was wrong doesn’t mean or even imply that the present super-majority is wrong. When you got such gigantic numbers in favour it is the job of the contrarians to conclusively show why all those scientists wrong.
The answer then is no, I didn’t mention them.
Ooops, I didn’t remember seeing Oreskes, I apologise, sorry.:smack:
I would say she’s basically right, there are people with profit-before-anything-else in their minds who want to do whatever is in their power to get even more profit. I am also clearly aware that some of my ideas (would, could) play into their hands and that, of course, gives me pause.
I still have my scpeticism but it’s always good to be vigilant of not being fed by nefarious organisations/people who, in other areas go against my main concern about general well-being.
Post 98: denialist baloney (content-free)
Post 100: denialist boilerplate (content-free)
Post 58: The rest is just unfounded points and denials (content-free)
Post 84: taken out of context by deniers (content-free)
Post 89: it is in reality the efforts of the deniers that convince many that there is a problem. (well, what do you expect?)
Post 95: typical of denier site(you send me to a ten minute video on cars by an activist graphic designer)
…and so on.
Maybe if you stopped with the “it’s a denialist site” and simply said “x is wrong” it would help the debate.
Apologised:smack::smack::smack:
So, again the answer is i didn’t mention it.
I’ll say (again): I don’t think there is a nefarious conspiracy in the great majority AGW proposers.
The CO2 science experiemtent is about the survial of coral larvae and polyps
The study you mention, which contradicts it only in part the other, talks about calcification in long-term studies. I think you wanted to link to this page. In that page they cite “Likewise, Langdon et al. (2000) calculate a decrease in coral calcification rate of up to 40% between 1880 and 2065.” Then they mention it’s wrong because they claim that ther is more to coral calcification than CO2 concentration and that there are biologicaly and biochemically driven aspects (It’d be good to have more than Langdon’s abstract to see in detail). I can’t see how mentioning word-by-word the most damning position made by your opponent is a misrepresentation.
I fully accept that they may be wrong (I haven’t read more than the abstracts) but I fully deny the charge of misrepresentation.
I have a couple of cite from denialist places. Please respond to the actual data. The first one is a classic. Broken records, averaging two other stations to fill the gap and a whoppin 0.9°C per decade increase. “Dropped” minus signs in adjustments.
McIntyre makes interesting points with lots of data here, here, here, here.
And of course, as you claim that there is a problem you should realize that one big reason scientists found that there is a problem is thanks to the evidence that this data shows.
So make up your mind, there is a problem or there is not. As mentioned to the other fellow, you should fight it with yourself and not with the researchers that already checked the corrections and their validity.
And the contrarians have spectacularly failed to convince most scientists as the evidence shows. Now contrarians resort to misleading information and seeding doubts to the public.
That is good, but you have to ramp up your pause, as much as you malign Skeptical Science, the name it got came from being skeptical of the contrarians.
Nah, one of the things I have found is that if you actually understood what you bring to the plate you should be able to find valid support elsewhere, when it is hard to come by it is because you have not applied enough skepticism to the say so of the deniers.
But the nest way to demonstrate that your Gish gallop here is silly one just needs to look at the post 98, unless you did not pay attention and were just enjoying yourself as you point out, you should had remembered that on previous discussions it is impossible to avoid the fact that this point of “a gigantic ammount of corrections to the actual observations.” is coming from the repeated attempts at claiming that the data is unreliable.
One of the first attempts was that the urban heat island effect was trowing the results out of whack and the adjustments made by the scientists (that were aware of that already of the effect)
(Brohan et al., 2006)
So, there is not much need to continue then in this thread, as the subject is to demand contrarians to explain why they rely so much on conspiracy theories to get their point across… like still pushing the idea that there is actually a point on saying that there is a gigantic amount of adjustment made.
The problem is that their opinion is not published on a peer reviewed yournal, they base their say so’s on their own very little supported work, indeed they are coming from what was pointed out in the past, from an idea (a false one) that researchers are conspiring to prevent contrarian researchers from getting published, so then they go the bloglessor way. Sorry, but one has to go for the published peer reviewed science, if they want to show the scientific paper is wrong by denying that CO2 will affect the ocean ecosystems, they need to walk the plank and be reviewed independently from their denialist bubbles.
Classic baloney from Willis Eschenbach (this was pointed out by Tamino at Open Mind, and as Willis has not dignified on publish that on a peer reviewed site then it is good to look at what others can see as the main reasons why Willis will not publish, his ideas can be shot down very quickly.
And only after checking that one then comes the dismissal, it is clear that once again you are just Gish Galloping and Google Vomiting, show us that you can discriminate the bad sources from the bad and what are the main items on the rest, because as just the first example shows, with sites like Watts up With That and Climate Audit they do not deserve any attention when they never correct their baloney and even deny that their reason for being got shot down several years ago, even before the BEST results came out.
By Agamemnon’s inflamed tonsils!!! Haven’t I said theire is a problem enough times!!!
Fight it with myself, sure, all the time.
Basically agreed on the first idea.
Disagree on the second.
It’s a bad sign when you decide (even if you’re always right) only to be skeptical of one side.
Two points are beyond controversy. 1) The orignial data has a lot of corrections. 2) The raw data needs corrections.
As I have mentioned many times before, scientific research data usually needs to be modified for perfectly valid scientific reasons, is standard operating procedure. I worked in polling and from the raw numbers we had to adjust for sex, age, socioeconomic groups, so that the final data was different from the original. This is absolutely normal and nobody with even a little knowledge can deny it; so please get this point: the fact that I complain about the corrections is not an indictment of the fact that correctin are used/needed.
I am personally unconvinced as to a small partof the methodology and, of course, do not think that the guys at NOAA are losing sleep because of that fact.
Your constant debating tactic is to paint all the AGW sceptics as ignorant and/or and the you colour anything the sceptic says with that idea.
A sceptic says “look at this weather station that was malfunctioning for 10 years and still got its data into the studies”, and the station was really malfunctioning and it did get into the studies, your answer is “all denialists want to make people believe that stations are wrong” and then post a link to a generic answer about “denier hate stations”.
If panting me as an evil ignorant makes you sleep better, go ahead.
You’re still wrong on both counts, but, what the hell, sleep tight.
If you don’t want to continue, I’ll be sad. i always get a kick reading your posts.
The OP was incredibly narrow in the definition and there is no debate possible: none of the SMDB sceptics believes in the conspiracy.
And is your youtube channel peer-reviewed? My demolition of your “CO” science misrepresents" Fisheries science isn’t peer-reviewed? it looks prett decent.
Kelypas published in Science
“Natural History” is iffy?
“Global and Planetary change” is peer-reviewd.
"Journal of Experimental and Marine Biology and Ecology " non-kosher
(I can go on)
or is it your point that the website itself isn’t peer-reviewed- Because, if that’s your point then: goose, meet gander.
Haven’t people critiqued it?
“Gish Galloping and Google Vomiting”, what’s next? Cooties?
“Do not deserve attention”, classic. You mean “does not deserve attention” like the Y2K thingy?
Who, oh who brought that up and got the correction?
And as they have even less support and reach at NASA and many organizations that do count they are even more irrelevant. Might as well that they should go watch paint dry.
And the rest of your post shows, it is a nice time waster for you and it is a proper effort for the Yellow Submarine’s nowhere man, making plans for no one.
The point of this thread for you is to indeed seed doubt of one of the main reasons why scientists think there is a problem, if you are incapable of seeing that keeping on insisting on this after the BEST review of that data and stations, then it is clear to all that you are indeed fighting with yourself and convincing no one.
Of course now that you see how silly that effort was it is important to pretend it was not a big deal, but of course that was not your original point so this new say so that you are just unconvinced as to a small part of the methodology makes silly the idea to say originally that it was a huge controversial thing among the scientists.
Getting back to subject, as now we have one poster here that still proposes that this is a hoax, our Bad Astronomer has a review of what scientists are doing against the proponents of that hoax that are wasting time and even Tax payer money pushing that hoax.
(my bolding)
Nope, that’s the point you wished I had and against which you debate, i.e. your debate against “generic denier”.
I debate a specific deluded warmist: you.
So therefore there is not really much of a problem with the data, was this trip to fess up to the fact that there was really no controversy on the adjustments really necessary?
Incidentally your last dig shows that indeed your say so’s that claim to acknowledge that there is a problem are just smoke screens, it is clear for others to see what your intentions are.
But enough beating around the bush arguments from you. Getting back to the point, as you agree with Oreskes we have to check once again with her what we should be doing.
