Stitch on 15/12/2009 at 15:19
Well, the following has been made abundantly clear:
1. Fragony doesn't understand the first thing about the contents of the stolen e-mails, but he isn't going to let that stop him from posting about it.
2. Fragony doesn't understand the first thing about the science behind climate change, but he isn't going to let that stop him from posting about it.
3. Fragony doesn't understand the first thing about science, but he isn't going to let that stop him from posting about it.
CCCToad on 15/12/2009 at 16:41
Quote:
1. Fragony doesn't understand the first thing about the contents of the stolen e-mails, but he isn't going to let that stop him from posting about it.
Not gonna argue much about Fragony not understanding much, thats abundantly clear, but I also think that most people don't understand the stolen emails that well either. They would do well to actually read them instead of just jumping on the "Durr tinfoil hats!" bandwagon.
Stitch on 15/12/2009 at 17:23
I agree to a point, but even then I think many overestimate their ability to understand the context of something they read, which is why many non-professionals often misinterpret information and come up with ridiculous conclusions.
This is something you're quite familiar with.
scarykitties on 15/12/2009 at 18:01
My feelings on the matter:
Both sides insist that they're absolutely right, aren't-you-stupid-for-thinking-otherwise, but it seems like more scientists are on the pro-global warming side.
As for me, I am not sure that my belief or disbelief holds any power. I certainly hope that it's not real, because that would blow. However, if it is real, what can I really do about it? I walk nearly everywhere I go, I try to conserve power... what more is there? It's really out of my hands either way.
Zygoptera on 15/12/2009 at 22:52
Quote Posted by Muzman
There is no evidence that the data has been manipulated.
Technically, there is no doubt the data has been manipulated- after all, pretty much all data sets are, especially in a complicated field. There is no compelling evidence that the data has been manipulated
unreasonably, or to fit a direct agenda though.
CCCToad on 15/12/2009 at 23:18
Quote Posted by Stitch
I agree to a point, but even then I think many overestimate their ability to understand the context of something they read, which is why many non-professionals often misinterpret information and come up with ridiculous conclusions.
This is something you're quite familiar with.
I wasn't really talking about the "fixing" issue, though. The best ones are ones I've mentioned already and written in plain english. there's one report where he says quite clearly that temperature as measured by rural recording stations has been constant over the years, and another where one scientist is advising a colleague on how he can get another scientist that he suspects of being a "climate skeptic" kicked off the team. I'll look that one up once I get on my own PC.
Master Villain on 16/12/2009 at 01:08
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
Technically, there is no doubt the data has been manipulated- after all, pretty much all data sets are, especially in a complicated field. There is no compelling evidence that the data has been manipulated
unreasonably, or to fit a direct agenda though.
Unfortunately, only the first ten words will sink in for some readers. :erg:
Zygoptera on 16/12/2009 at 02:01
And that's the really unfortunate thing, we're in a situation where any equivocation or admission of potential errors or data manipulation- even if it's perfectly acceptable in non controversial scientific fields- is greeted with a litany of "haha not proven!!!" "data has been changed!!!" "OMG experimental errors" "aspect x does not support it (fuck the rest which does) YOUR RONG!!!"
CCCToad on 16/12/2009 at 02:46
Personally, it seems to me like the scientists were trying to show the data as more clear cut than it actually is not for an agenda, but simply because they wanted to please their boss. Doesn't disprove global warming, it just means the data hasn't been vetted as well as it should be(and some of the counter-opinions in the documents indicate that criticism came up even internal to the IPCC).
Its really not that different from any other organization: people to do quite a bit when trying to suck up.
zombe on 16/12/2009 at 06:15
Given that their competition might notice misrepresentation (intentional or not), thus discrediting them and robbing grant money, i can not see why would any "boss" let that happen (not that it could not happen, just that in long term that would be very undesirable).
Also, given your previous blunder at quoting "internalish" IPCC criticism - your comment here on that is also likely quite empty.
Just saying ...
