|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 3, 2011 3:39:56 GMT
Yet many folks on this site want to hang the guy who saw the dead bears. I see absolutely nothing wrong in saying some bears died and it seems unusual. What's the beef?
Saying so at a cocktail party? No problem. Setting up a soapbox in Pershing Square and shouting it at the top of your lungs? No problem.
The issue is whether writing a science paper, performing extrapolations from a non-randomly selected sample population is something a "professional" should do especially using the color of his position and title.
You are probably not a professional Richard or you would clearly know the difference.
In my view really the only question in contention here is whether academia is an association of professionals operating under professional standards or not. Its my impression they are not but it seems that some desire it to be so, thus the issue has been raised.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 3, 2011 4:56:16 GMT
Yet many folks on this site want to hang the guy who saw the dead bears. I see absolutely nothing wrong in saying some bears died and it seems unusual. What's the beef?Saying so at a cocktail party? No problem. Setting up a soapbox in Pershing Square and shouting it at the top of your lungs? No problem. The issue is whether writing a science paper, performing extrapolations from a non-randomly selected sample population is something a "professional" should do especially using the color of his position and title. You are probably not a professional Richard or you would clearly know the difference. In my view really the only question in contention here is whether academia is an association of professionals operating under professional standards or not. Its my impression they are not but it seems that some desire it to be so, thus the issue has been raised. bull. Nothing at all was done that was out of the ordinary. Even the folks who assaulted the guy are backing off, saying it had nothing to do with the polar bear note. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 3, 2011 5:55:17 GMT
bull. Nothing at all was done that was out of the ordinary. Even the folks who assaulted the guy are backing off, saying it had nothing to do with the polar bear note.
You are being unclear Richard. I pointed out that there is a difference between "ordinary" and "professional" standards. I belong to a profession with extensive written standards. There is no backing away in the enforcement of these standards.
Backing away is unique to where standards are weak or ill defined and then politics can bring about a "backing away". We are seeing a lot of that lately like Climategate investigations that investigate everything but climategate.
But that is really just an example of the absence of a professional environment.
As I stated Richard, nothing out the ordinary was done as long as its done by ordinary people in an ordinary life.
Only if there is a desire to elevate the public perception of the work do you go to strict promulgated standards and insist on clear standards of workmanship.
I can tell you being a person who deals with such matters that in an attestation it would be a violation for me to issue a document suggesting an extrapolation without a lot more work than a serendipitous sighting to confirm the extrapolation. But thats is because its a profession that cares a whole lot about its work product.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 4, 2011 10:54:37 GMT
Seeing (allegedly) some dead bears from an airplane is one thing.
Deciding they are dead because of CO2 is another.
Writing this up as if it is proven CO2 killed the bears is another still.
Making policy about polar bears based on that alleged siting and conclusion is very much another still.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 5, 2011 3:21:14 GMT
bull. Nothing at all was done that was out of the ordinary. Even the folks who assaulted the guy are backing off, saying it had nothing to do with the polar bear note.You are being unclear Richard. I pointed out that there is a difference between "ordinary" and "professional" standards. I belong to a profession with extensive written standards. There is no backing away in the enforcement of these standards. Backing away is unique to where standards are weak or ill defined and then politics can bring about a "backing away". We are seeing a lot of that lately like Climategate investigations that investigate everything but climategate. But that is really just an example of the absence of a professional environment. As I stated Richard, nothing out the ordinary was done as long as its done by ordinary people in an ordinary life. Only if there is a desire to elevate the public perception of the work do you go to strict promulgated standards and insist on clear standards of workmanship. I can tell you being a person who deals with such matters that in an attestation it would be a violation for me to issue a document suggesting an extrapolation without a lot more work than a serendipitous sighting to confirm the extrapolation. But thats is because its a profession that cares a whole lot about its work product. Lots of words, but nothing substantial, again. Tell us, specifically, what is wrong with the bear pseudo-study? It looks clear, concise, rational, reasonable, and pertaining to the highest standards. Certainly far higher than anything coming out of Spencer's camp. Or does this have something to do with the non-existent extrapolation done over time? Naw, he had a search area, scientifically selected, and found what he found. He noted that it wasn't his initial project and presented the data quite clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 5, 2011 3:24:16 GMT
Seeing (allegedly) some dead bears from an airplane is one thing. Deciding they are dead because of CO2 is another. Writing this up as if it is proven CO2 killed the bears is another still. Making policy about polar bears based on that alleged siting and conclusion is very much another still. Completely wrong. He speculated that the bears perished because of a storm, combined with the fact that there was more open water than normal. Note the word speculated. He made it quite clear that he had no specific data other than seeing bear carcasses in the water. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 5, 2011 13:40:12 GMT
Or does this have something to do with the non-existent extrapolation done over time? Naw, he had a search area, scientifically selected, and found what he found. He noted that it wasn't his initial project and presented the data quite clearly.
One of my first audits was of a troubled entity. I found that professional standards were so strict in regards to care about how things were said that we put almost twice the hours in ensuring the correct words were used than we did in actually auditing the entity. Why was that? It was to be absolutely crystal clear on the meaning of what we said so that it would not be misinterpreted in any way by any common person thinking commonly.
After the publication of the article the internet was full of people claiming 27 bears dying in the Arctic from a lack of ice and that the lack of ice was endangering the very existence of polar bears and all the links came back to this study. there we have prima facie proof of a miscommunication despite your claim of clarity.
What we are seeing from you Richard is in fact a defense of non-professionalism while trying to claim it was done professionally. One can only claim reasonably claim professionalism on the study from the point of view of a professional propagandist and one can actually go out right now and still measure it with a survey of people that still have that bear standing on a slab of ice and what it meant to them in their mind.
But hey! Propagandism is the very definition of these areas of science in this day and age and it is allowed to fester because of all the green it attracts.
I will freely admit that it was "enforceable" standards and strict liability for what we allowed to be published that led directly to such a high level of professional care. People would not make such extraordinary efforts to be clear if there were no standards. But responsibility is part and parcel with being a professional. You can't be a professional unless you accept that responsibility.
Finally the recent interview with the author, the author confirms all this. Saying himself it was "sloppy", there were no "statistics", there was no "intent" to engage in misconduct. Basically he is saying it wasn't a job that in his view met his own professional standards. But Hey Richard he got money for it! So all is well right?
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Aug 21, 2011 17:38:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 21, 2011 18:32:21 GMT
Completely wrong. He speculated that the bears perished because of a storm, combined with the fact that there was more open water than normal. Note the word speculated. He made it quite clear that he had no specific data other than seeing bear carcasses in the water.
Speculated is a good word.
spec·u·lateVerb/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
1. Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Aug 30, 2011 13:47:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Sept 2, 2011 17:08:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 2, 2011 23:26:50 GMT
Actually, it's more likely evidence that publishing as bad a paper as S&B2011 has far greater implications now than in the past given the immense power of the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 3, 2011 1:13:36 GMT
Actually, it's more likely evidence that publishing as bad a paper as S&B2011 has far greater implications now than in the past given the immense power of the internet. Please, at least be honest, you don't know squat about what is wrong with the paper. Are you aware the same type of 'circle the wagons' defense was used for Michael Mann? Ben Santer? Eric Steig? In the end, guess who prevailed. It's a good thing we had the Climategate emails isn't it? Scientists outside of the climate science Team are not so impressed. www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/2/journal-editor-resigns.html?currentPage=2#commentsProfessor Jonathon Jones (quantum Physics Oxford University)
“This is truly bizarre, and just shows how profoundly warped the climate science community has become. I make no judgement here on the correctness of the paper, but editors just don’t resign because of things like this.
Nobody resigned at Science when they published that utter drivel about bacteria replacing phosphorus with arsenic; they just published seven comments (IIRC) back to back with a rather desperate defence from the original authors.
Nobody resigned at Phys Rev Lett when I trashed a paper (on the evaluation of Gaussian sums) they had selected as one of the leading papers of the month: indeed nobody has formally ever accepted that I was right, but remarkably all the later papers on this subject follow my line.
I have been up to my neck for over a year in a huge row with Iannis Kominis about the underlying quantum mechanics of spin sensing chemical reactions, and either his papers or mine (or just possibly both) are complete nonsense: but nobody has resigned over Koniminis’s paper in Phys Rev B or mine in Chem Phys Lett.
Sure, my two controversies above never hit the popular press, but the arsenic stuff was discussed all over the place, far more than Spencer and Braswell.
What sort of weird warped world to climate scientists inhabit?
How have they allowed themselves to move so far from comon sense?
What is wrong with these guys?
Only zombies can't smell the stinky odor of the Team. This is 'Rules for Radicals' at work here. RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.) RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.) RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.) RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.) RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.) RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.) RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.) RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 3, 2011 4:02:27 GMT
Actually, it's more likely evidence that publishing as bad a paper as S&B2011 has far greater implications now than in the past given the immense power of the internet. Please, at least be honest, you don't know squat about what is wrong with the paper. Here's a good analysis of Spencer's paper. bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/also see skeptical science's take: www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=914Essentially, Spencer's model's parameters are unconstrained so they can be tweaked to give just about any climate sensitivity desired. Most of the issues brought up by the paper can be explained by ENSO. Given that the time frame was a single decade which has quite anomalous data, ENSO and other weather related variations needed to be taken into account. Spencer neglected to do so. Frankly, I think limiting the analysis to a single decade is not defensible in and of itself. The editor made a mistake by limiting the reviews to climate skeptics, so the paper's flaws didn't come up prior to publishing. That mistake could have been handled in other ways than the resignation of the editor, which I think was excessive, but it appears that the decision was entirely the editor's, so I can hardly quibble with his decision. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 3, 2011 4:58:42 GMT
Frankly, I think limiting the analysis to a single decade is not defensible in and of itself.
You think? Uh any rationale for that since IPCC dire predictions and high sensitivity has only been out for a decade?
Quite frankly, despite efforts to create a "New Elite" designed to replace common sense; its going to take some decades of actually showing one can predict anything before the public climbs on board.
The editor made a mistake by limiting the reviews to climate skeptics,
My gawd! I can only imagine how many editors should be resigning over papers published without a skeptic on the review panel!
|
|
