tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8482349171329594781..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Cook, et al. The prequel, the teeth gnashing, the recursive furyEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61163240041116828642013-05-18T01:56:57.454-04:002013-05-18T01:56:57.454-04:00No. 1 - if you're not on a team, why toss out ...No. 1 - if you're not on a team, why toss out squishy morsels from their chum-bucket?<br /><br />As Eli points out, this 'critique' is simply asinine carping.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13593725836480534302013-05-17T19:29:07.865-04:002013-05-17T19:29:07.865-04:00I tried to post this over at Lucia's but her s...I tried to post this over at Lucia's but her site is too slow. Must be under attack from the warmists.<br /><br />******<br /><br />Steve Mosher wrote:<br />"2. Lukewarmer: explicitly or implicity endorses AGW with<br />no quantification of portion of warming due to humans"<br /><br />That is not a valid category title. A paper might accept that the planet is warming due to human action but not discuss quantification of the portion due to humans. That does not describe a "lukewarmer" -- that describes scientific consensus. Consensus means a part of your theory is so widely accepted you don't need to offer evidence about that part. For example, a discussion of the behavior of SQUIDS (super-conducting quantum interference devices) will not talk about justifying quantum mechanics. Gatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65214154035415109472013-05-17T18:14:04.890-04:002013-05-17T18:14:04.890-04:00An erratum:
> Note how Chewbacca's trying ...An erratum:<br /><br />> Note how Chewbacca's trying to define AGW as "50% or more".<br /><br />Should read:<br /><br />> Note how Chewbacca's trying to characterize AGW as "more than 50%".<br /><br />Here's where we can read this implication:<br /><br />> The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions: "that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)."<br /><br />As if we should expect more quantitative attribution studies than rejectionist (T/M Eli) papers.<br /><br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10947973159004606692013-05-17T14:38:09.023-04:002013-05-17T14:38:09.023-04:00Link to Chewbacca's pea and thimble game:
htt...Link to Chewbacca's pea and thimble game:<br /><br />http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74435618473899969472013-05-17T14:21:52.313-04:002013-05-17T14:21:52.313-04:00> what's his name
Chewbacca.
Speaking o...> what's his name <br /><br />Chewbacca.<br /><br />Speaking of whom, here's a pea and thimble game.<br /><br />First, the pea:<br /><br />> Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.<br /><br />Note how Chewbacca's trying to define AGW as "50% or more".<br /><br />Note also that the abstracts do not <b>reject</b> anything like Chewbacca's pea.<br /><br />Now, Chewbacca's thimble:<br /><br />> The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.<br /><br />Note how "negligible" characterizes "less than 50% or less".<br /><br />***<br /><br />Chewbacca might have a tough time parsing his way out of this pea and thimble game.<br /><br />Perhaps bunnies should ask Chewbacca where he took his characterization of AGW.<br /><br />I can't do it myself, since Lucia restricted my contributions to her blog:<br /><br />> If you have more to say on this subject (or any other), please post at your tumblr blog and provide the link here.<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/23241027012<br /><br />Yes, but RC moderation.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89836480094787341272013-05-17T13:27:01.237-04:002013-05-17T13:27:01.237-04:00#1, that is a pile of dead fish that Lucia and wha...#1, that is a pile of dead fish that Lucia and what's his name are peddling. No ABSTRACT was rated collaboratively, what happened was that the specifications for each category were discussed early in the rating process. If that had any effect it would show as a differential between the earliest and the later ratings.<br /><br />In the prequel we did this after the training set.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-92000055074031512122013-05-17T11:47:42.072-04:002013-05-17T11:47:42.072-04:00Brat and Bill,
All I said was based on the web b...Brat and Bill,<br /><br /><br />All I said was based on the web blog collaboration during the review process, that some reviews would probably fall under the collaborative category and some independent. I said nothing of the paper and its results, because in the grand scheme of things it contributes very little as far as new knowledge or insight.<br /><br />Do you like your Straw Men with blue or green jacket? I am guessing green. I did not realize I was on some team and must stand in lockstep with their every move, that actually seems to describe you better than I.<br /><br /><br />Oh and Brat it was not a problem that you spelled independent incorrectly, it was that you called a group of people retarded. I found that humorous.<br /><br /><br />1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75035612051584899992013-05-17T03:36:25.106-04:002013-05-17T03:36:25.106-04:00Number 1, I may spell independent incorrectly (mer...Number 1, I may spell independent incorrectly (merci les faux amis entre langue française et anglaise), but I know enough english to try and understand people on teh Internetz. And, frankly, your short intervention is on the level of the board I've read : I don't get it. <br /><br />I'm sure you will type a lot on your keyboard to demonstrate that, because some people dared to share their thoughts about the criteria, the whole study was totally biased on the warmista side and therefore is a propaganda tool, while a "totally honest" study would have seen the number of "skeptic" papers skyrocketing. <br /><br />Oh wait, most advices on the web log tend to be more convservative than the initial rating.<br />Oh wait bis, the true "skeptic" papers are still scarce, mainly because Watts "groundbreaking" paper is still waited for<br /><br />And whining that people discuss on a board, and not saying anything about <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/05/cooks-survey/#comment-417816" rel="nofollow"> someone on another board explicitely advising to throw a wrench in the study by making random ratings </a>, is quite ... prioeless. <br /><br />Once again, Dada would have been proud of you. <br /><br />BratislaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17343679528273795812013-05-17T01:03:23.287-04:002013-05-17T01:03:23.287-04:00I will add a bit to the history. Back in 2004, wh...I will add a bit to the history. Back in 2004, when Oreskes' folks did their quick survey, they were surprised by the results. Why?<br /><br />Naomi had written <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/182-5974922-2187955?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=oreskes+continental+drift" rel="nofollow">The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science</a> (1999), which traced the detailed evolution of scientific thinking on that. There was a long history of argument, especially between Europeans and most Americans, and then with post-WW II data, the issue got resolved relatively quickly.<br /><br />So, in looking at 1993-2003, they expected to find a much higher fraction of rejections in 1993, decreasing either slowly (or perhaps with sharp breaks sometime). They were surprised to find that within science, already by 1993, the number of rejections was already low, i.e., the basic argument was over and people were spending their time on all the other remaining issues.<br />John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3462071421320471702013-05-16T23:01:19.169-04:002013-05-16T23:01:19.169-04:00Hey, Number One - do your own study! As JM points ...Hey, Number One - do your own study! As JM points out, that hasn't gone well for your lot.<br /><br />Did you do Cook's public rating survey? Can you seriously doubt the figures on the distribution of papers are correct? <br /><br />No. So the Rejectionist teleprompter now reads 'throw mud', as is traditional when confronting a despised but irrefutable result.<br /><br />The discussion on your 'gotcha' is <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1994&p=2#94390" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Note that it's based on reading the paper.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18950648531072118612013-05-16T22:08:22.951-04:002013-05-16T22:08:22.951-04:00> Who is this Brandon.
Someone who says "...> Who is this Brandon.<br /><br />Someone who says "You make no sense!" a lot:<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/Chewbacca<br /><br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85090484600072637942013-05-16T21:34:00.464-04:002013-05-16T21:34:00.464-04:00Well, along these lines, but earlier, on Oreskes&#...Well, along these lines, but earlier, on Oreskes':<br /><br />a) Benny Peiser tried once, didn't go too well.<br /><br />b) Then Monckton tried again, using his endocrinologist KM Schulte as a front, with help from Rob Ferguson of SPPI (well, really Craig Idso's CSDCGC, where Ferguson has been the highest paid employee, although SPPI is really a PO Box in a suburban UPS store near his house). That didn't go so well either. :-)<br /><br />Needless to say, the SkS effort took a lot of work by those folks.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48591760968235769362013-05-16T19:54:17.486-04:002013-05-16T19:54:17.486-04:00Well, if they disagree with the methodology--seems...Well, if they disagree with the methodology--seems like the hypothesis is falsifiable, no? So instead of carping, whining and generally behaving badly, redo the survey...Pinotgraveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123660758178090092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23438314205709355902013-05-16T19:20:47.674-04:002013-05-16T19:20:47.674-04:00The delusion over at Lucia's knitting club has...The delusion over at Lucia's knitting club has hit the nauseous level a while back for me. I'm glad I'm not hanging out there anymore. I wonder why I ever did.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67200479347403684582013-05-16T16:06:11.020-04:002013-05-16T16:06:11.020-04:00my take on Brandon is that he desperately misses h...my take on Brandon is that he desperately misses his high school debate team.<br /><br />Lucia is trying to create an impenetrable fortress out of her web server, whut's up wid dat?<br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27026726796994735642013-05-16T15:18:04.328-04:002013-05-16T15:18:04.328-04:00Bratisla
At least they are not completely retarde...Bratisla<br /><br />At least they are not completely retarded, as they can spell independent correctly.<br /><br /><br /><br />Funny how independent reviewers can discuss on a web blog how to review an abstract during the review process and come out calling it independent. I would say some were independent and some reviews were collaborative.<br /><br /><br />1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80464719852482545212013-05-16T11:10:17.751-04:002013-05-16T11:10:17.751-04:00Eli thinks it pretty well established that the lim...Eli thinks it pretty well established that the <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/aerosols-in-woods.html" rel="nofollow">limiting factors</a> are aerosols, controlled by SO2, and dust.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31559205574142218192013-05-16T07:59:34.012-04:002013-05-16T07:59:34.012-04:00"Oh yes, the carping has started."
The..."Oh yes, the carping has started."<br /><br /><br />The Blackboard is currently down - ergo the conspiracy is censoring their concerns. <br /><br />AnonySpilopsyllaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55929401928878924162013-05-16T03:54:19.745-04:002013-05-16T03:54:19.745-04:00I'm sorry, I try usually to get myself as far ...I'm sorry, I try usually to get myself as far as possible from "skeptic" sites, therefore I'm naive but ...<br />they are apparently in this case so retarded that they do not get "independant" means "independant from the authors of the rated article". Is it always the case, or did cosmic rays temper with their brain that particular day ? <br /><br />Dada and Magritte would have had so much fun ... <br /><br />BratislaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73043630489829717592013-05-16T01:42:42.946-04:002013-05-16T01:42:42.946-04:00Yes, but cosmic rays!
Oh...
"Our analysis s...Yes, but cosmic rays!<br /><br />Oh...<br /><br />"Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly... Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming."<br /><br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00703-013-0260-xandrew adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17196332706764660436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2407420889085001182013-05-15T23:10:04.354-04:002013-05-15T23:10:04.354-04:00Regarding the papers that did not express an opini...Regarding the papers that did not express an opinion:<br /><br /><i>The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. <b>“The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”</b></i><br /><br />From http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/science/earth/epa-emissions-rules-backed-by-court.html?_r=0<br /><br />KRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23858923639686703192013-05-15T23:07:11.238-04:002013-05-15T23:07:11.238-04:00Ooooo....someone ripped Roger Jrs name out of Andy...Ooooo....someone ripped Roger Jrs name out of Andy's Roladex? Even better.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69378076597529301142013-05-15T22:12:52.454-04:002013-05-15T22:12:52.454-04:00Sounds intriguing, Albatross :D
Can I just add on...Sounds intriguing, Albatross :D<br /><br />Can I just add one more funny? <br /><br />Poptech is going apoplectic. "Only 78 papers by deniers" (He called them by the denier euphemism "skeptics".) "Get the papers" he pleads. "Someone, anyone, get the papers."Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55581882663403636872013-05-15T22:04:41.850-04:002013-05-15T22:04:41.850-04:00A word of advice...just let the poor deniers and &...A word of advice...just let the poor deniers and "fake skeptics" fester in their own cesspool of spit and venom. Much bigger developments are afoot :)Albatrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14444036939651524737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-561903592103658262013-05-15T21:32:11.059-04:002013-05-15T21:32:11.059-04:00Shollenberger is trying to drive the clown car. H...Shollenberger is trying to drive the clown car. He's getting himself all tied up in knots though, just like Willard Tony did. Confusing independence and objectivity. And being inconsistent in regard to which conspiracy is the current one; and other stuff.<br /><br />Bunch of raving ratbags, the lot of them. Including Lucia whose veneer of sanity keeps slipping. Plus she lets the inmates run riot.<br /><br />Apologies for all the mixed metaphors. Hard to keep track of that lot.<br /><br />Victor Venema thinks their audiences numbers are dropping. Not a surprise really. I guess when a carbon price/tax or whatever gets close to reality in the USA their numbers will shoot up again. (That's based on experience here in Australia.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com