|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 5, 2011 2:24:24 GMT
Spencer stepped into the realm of advocacy and away from real science when he started his weblog. His blog is now talking about economics (with cartoons!), something which he has no expertise in. His forays away from science and to advocacy and politics means we should value his work as much as vlkue James Hansen's - e.g. not at all. Science is hard to do, it is hard to keep your bias out, and those who attempt to put their bias into their analysis are not doing science. I agree 100%. That is why the skeptics are having a field day anymore. The likes of Dr. Trenbeth, Hansen, Dessler, Mann....just to name a few. They branched out into the politics of AGW....and did it on thin ice. (Pun intended)....... I posted a link to a presentation by Dr. Lindzen and Dr. North at Rice on another thread, but I am going to post it here as well. It is well worth watching. And this is HOW climate debate should be done. edtech.rice.edu/www/?option=com_iwebcast&action=details&event=2130
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 3:43:34 GMT
Drone? So nice to read BS and spittle as an attempt at real thought and discourse.
Yes, I know how to do science and have published papers, funded grants, etc. Do you have any of the above?
I also fully understand the politics of peer review and grant review, the bias of the whole, and the suppression of different ideas so common to our university based paradigm - driven by the old and less than fresh and their ideas, instead of the new.
I am not sure what you reference, a specific Team? Good scientists have no underlying bias or want other to analyze the data, so its seems contrarian for a scientist to have a rooting interest in the outcome of a study. What do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 14:49:15 GMT
Drone? So nice to read BS and spittle as an attempt at real thought and discourse. Yes, I know how to do science and have published papers, funded grants, etc. Do you have any of the above? I also fully understand the politics of peer review and grant review, the bias of the whole, and the suppression of different ideas so common to our university based paradigm - driven by the old and less than fresh and their ideas, instead of the new. I am not sure what you reference, a specific Team? Good scientists have no underlying bias or want other to analyze the data, so its seems contrarian for a scientist to have a rooting interest in the outcome of a study. What do you mean? Ok, you don't know what the Team is. Have you considered, by your own definition, which scientists have or don't have a rooting interest in the outcome of a study? Are you biased? Is Kevin Trenberth, the center of the current controversy surrounding Roy Spencer's published paper, the antithesis of Roy Spencer who you imply is unqualified? Yes, I know how to do science and have published papers, funded grants, etc. Do you have any of the above? If you're going to make claims that puts you in a "superior" light and expect people to believe them, then use your real name. Otherwise, expect to be pummeled.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 16:46:56 GMT
You guys are really paranoid aren't you?
I have noted in this string that both Spencer and Hansen are biased, I thought that might be enough for you to read between the lines and think that I also believe Mann, Trenberth and the rest also are not doing science - they are playing politics. Because of the trust given to Mann and Hansen their politics is even scarier as they are screwing with the primary source of data.
No, I do not believe the hockey stick...use the lower level troposphere temp directly from NASA (not Spencer) as a proxy for land temp...
That good enough? The issue is that the same standard needs to be applied to both sides and a pox on both their houses - in many cases.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 16:57:09 GMT
I have linked this here before, but this how science is done and how bias of the whole creates fraud at many levels, and I lived with them, they are rampant: www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.htmlI fully believe that what is occurring in global warming science is a type of fraud discussed under the "Power structure of science." I am not the only one, Judith Curry herself seems to think this if you read between the lines, although the comments section on her board is one giant circular argument.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 17:00:31 GMT
I will leave to other posters to decide who speaks better and has better arguments - in the end your CV alone is not supposed to be what brings you credit, see Spencer and Hansen for two examples of CVs that deserve much less credit than they are given.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 19:09:15 GMT
I will leave to other posters to decide who speaks better and has better arguments - in the end your CV alone is not supposed to be what brings you credit, see Spencer and Hansen for two examples of CVs that deserve much less credit than they are given. As you don't know what the Team is, that in itself speaks volumes that you aren't as informed as you'd like to make others think. Do you think Trenberth is justified in his criticism of Spencer? What do you know about Kevin Trenberth? Again, what papers have you published? Let's get this out in the open now. Poetic gibberish isn't all that impressive.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 19:47:18 GMT
I am not going to get into a pissing context with a one who rants without facts. Got any? What "Team"?
Trenberth's want to attack other scientists in blog posts is completely inappropriate and not scientific. Hansen's want to protest and get arrested shows clear bias, Spencer's want to condescend to the rest of the world on topics completely outside of his field shows the guy has real issues with ego. An editor calling to "apologize" to anyone for an error other than his fellow editors is absolutely unheard of. This whole thing is well outside science and if we allow our science to devolve the same way our politics have we are in for a world of trouble.
Thanks for calling me a poet - my arguments must be pretty darn persuasive then.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 19:51:40 GMT
I am not going to get into a pissing context with a one who rants without facts. Got any? What "Team"? Trenberth's want to attack other scientists in blog posts is completely inappropriate and not scientific. Hansen's want to protest and get arrested shows clear bias, Spencer's want to condescend to the rest of the world on topics completely outside of his field shows the guy has real issues with ego. An editor calling to "apologize" to anyone for an error other than his fellow editors is absolutely unheard of. This whole thing is well outside science and if we allow our science to devolve the same way our politics have we are in for a world of trouble. Thanks for calling me a poet - my arguments must be pretty darn persuasive then. You still haven't listed the specifics of why Roy Spencer's paper is wrong. How does starting a blog disqualify his research? Is RealClimate a legitimate blog?
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 20:40:41 GMT
A biased blog disqualify's him as an unbiased scientist, thus his paper must be taken with a giant grain of salt.
Real Climate is a legitimate blog, so is Roy Spencer's blog - but having a clearly biased blog in the topic area you do research in should remove you as a scientist. You clearly are not unbiased.
If any folks worked on RealClimate from their government computer's they should be fired, and if they are not fired they sure ought to be moved from any data collection or analysis position.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or are you one of those guys who has to post on the internet because noone will talk to you in real life?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 5, 2011 20:46:12 GMT
I am not going to get into a pissing context with a one who rants without facts. Got any? What "Team"? Trenberth's want to attack other scientists in blog posts is completely inappropriate and not scientific. Hansen's want to protest and get arrested shows clear bias, Spencer's want to condescend to the rest of the world on topics completely outside of his field shows the guy has real issues with ego. An editor calling to "apologize" to anyone for an error other than his fellow editors is absolutely unheard of. This whole thing is well outside science and if we allow our science to devolve the same way our politics have we are in for a world of trouble. Thanks for calling me a poet - my arguments must be pretty darn persuasive then. To Magellan as well: When we start defending the person, rather than the science expressed, the science is lost. The "Team", and if justsomeguy needs an introduction, I am sure we can provide him with one...... The tactic of character assisination has been employeed by the GAWG folks for a long time. One of the good things the skeptics have refrained from is attacking the person. The Team's moral values have been known to anyone who reads. They have left the science in the dust a long time ago. That is essentially why they are loosing the AGW concept. They have made it political/a belief, rather than sticking to the physics, the knowns and the unknowns. Much better for the skeptic side to encourage the continued discussion on the science. I will admit that the papers of the likes of Trenbeth/Hansen/Dessler have been really a stretch as of late, which only, once again, makes their positions even more strenuous.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 20:51:14 GMT
As for my views on the data in the Spencer paper, Judith curry gets it about right: judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/What she underplays is the giagantic push by the right to make this paper into some giant proof that all modelling is flawed, which it clearly does not. I think the models are wrong, but I also think it will taken reasoned good science to improve them and blog posts and Forbe's editors screaming incorrect headlines is not helpful to the scientific process...and scientists like Spender and Trenberth who want to make science into something it isn't - a political statement - need to be treated like politicians and not scientists.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 20:53:08 GMT
A biased blog disqualify's him as an unbiased scientist, thus his paper must be taken with a giant grain of salt. Real Climate is a legitimate blog, so is Roy Spencer's blog - but having a clearly biased blog in the topic area you do research in should remove you as a scientist. You clearly are not unbiased. If any folks worked on RealClimate from their government computer's they should be fired, and if they are not fired they sure ought to be moved from any data collection or analysis position. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or are you one of those guys who has to post on the internet because noone will talk to you in real life? I've been on this forum since its inception and have seen a lot come and go. It would be nice to see exactly where you stand. Roy Spencer has been relentlessly attacked by the Team and its sycophants for a long time, including in the MSM which are lapdogs for AGW. You danced around the RealClimate question. Most know by this time Gavin Schmidt spent considerable time on the tax payer's dime, and RC was even referenced at NASA. Should anything at RealClimate be considered legitimate science since your standards seem pretty high. Kevin Trenberth has posted there on multiple occasions. So has Eric Steig and many, many others. What was Spencer supposed to do, just sit back and continue having his good name besmirched by these jackals? Now, you still have not answered the question. Is Kevin Trenberth justified in doing what he has done to Roy Spencer?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 20:54:51 GMT
As for my views on the data in the Spencer paper, Judith curry gets it about right: judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/What she underplays is the giagantic push by the right to make this paper into some giant proof that all modelling is flawed, which it clearly does not. I think the models are wrong, but I also think it will taken reasoned good science to improve them and blog posts and Forbe's editors screaming incorrect headlines is not helpful to the scientific process...and scientists like Spender and Trenberth who want to make science into something it isn't - a political statement - need to be treated like politicians and not scientists. So Judith Curry is the standard for good science? And she hasn't participated in any political discussion? Are you kidding me? She just did in the quote you posted!
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 20:55:27 GMT
Well, your use of "Team" would seem to agree with exactly what my argument has been, the fact that I have come to it without the correct inoculation of right wing rhetoric might make both our arguments stronger. I would use the term "true believer" to describe some of these nonscientists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome
|
|