tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post6805037753883115622..comments2024-02-13T07:44:24.008+00:00Comments on The Low Carbon Kid: That Geoclimatic Studies hoax - and what it was aboutDavidKThorpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04215770376688861114noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-65332567881766767622007-12-25T14:42:00.000+00:002007-12-25T14:42:00.000+00:00Science doesn't accept the existence of facts, onl...Science doesn't accept the existence of facts, only theories which have not yet been falsified. Check your Karl Popper.<BR/><BR/>Science builds models, theories, equations, based on observations. These are then tested, or predictions made on the basis of the theories are tested. If they are proved to be untrue the theory is refined or thrown away. <BR/><BR/>But a 'fact'? Well, we can say water boils at 100 degrees Celsius - but only under certain conditions. So it's a contingent fact, just as Copernicus' observations have ben surpassed, and the theories based on these observations developed.<BR/><BR/>The IPCC tries to build models of the climate based on observations. What we have now is the best available evidence, for the best available theory. Like all scientific theories it will evolve.<BR/><BR/>Many thousands of people are working constantly to improve the the theories as fast as possible. They all, ideally, use the Popperian model of scientific advancement.DavidKThorpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04215770376688861114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-63103660429332455412007-12-24T19:35:00.000+00:002007-12-24T19:35:00.000+00:00"I can only say, if we haven't got the scientific ..."I can only say, if we haven't got the scientific consensus then what have we got?"<BR/><BR/>How 'bout facts? Truth? If only we could ask Copernicus about this deep question of yours.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-69299634875795086582007-11-15T01:35:00.000+00:002007-11-15T01:35:00.000+00:00This is only one example. We know the blogosphere...This is only one example. We know the blogosphere can propagate unchecked non-facts at the speed of light and there are plenty of examples. The recent Monckton / Schulte / Ferguson vs Oreskes affair is a good example, in which a lot of people were really keen to believe that an endocrinologist had proved there was non consensus on AGW. IT lasted a lot longer, since the actual paper was not published.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-31187971857329127502007-11-14T09:09:00.000+00:002007-11-14T09:09:00.000+00:00I wish that people would spend less time playing c...I wish that people would spend less time playing conspiracy theories and more time trying to look at the evidence.DavidKThorpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04215770376688861114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-18569975517104888872007-11-14T01:35:00.000+00:002007-11-14T01:35:00.000+00:00"What the hoax showed is that there are many peopl..."What the hoax showed is that there are many people willing to jump on anything that supports their argument, whether it's true or not."<BR/><BR/>Are you talking about the great global warming swindle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-46565543271166276902007-11-12T13:11:00.000+00:002007-11-12T13:11:00.000+00:00Apologies - I was quoting verbatim from 'desmogblo...Apologies - I was quoting verbatim from 'desmogblog'. Nevertheless, you did apparently fall for it. The writer of the 'paper' did an interview published on Nature, reproduced in part here: http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/11/the-great-co2-h.html.DavidKThorpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04215770376688861114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-90501330423276466482007-11-12T12:54:00.000+00:002007-11-12T12:54:00.000+00:00David it appears you are falling for part of your ...David it appears you are falling for part of your own hoax.<BR/><BR/>You quote me, Neil Craig at 'A Place to Stand' said "this paper could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory" - now this comes from various newspaper articles which, in turn, are rewrites of the Reuters report in it which does indeed quote me as saying this. However a more careful reading of my post would have shown that I was not claiming this as my view but was instead taking it as a quote from your own article. You are therefore quoting the quote of the quote of myself republishing your quote, which you apparently didn't recognise.<BR/><BR/>I note you have said that "we" arranged this hoax & since it is indeed well constructed in the style of a genuine paper perhaps the other alarmist conspirators involved might like to take a public bow.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-91669351993618784722007-11-12T10:51:00.000+00:002007-11-12T10:51:00.000+00:00This is exactly why we need a body like the IPCC t...This is exactly why we need a body like the IPCC to maintain an accurate record of scientist's observations on global warming. The hoax shows that sceptics grab whatever argument they can to make a case against global warming. Greg<BR/><BR/>www.HelpWorldClimate.comGreg Tallenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04358303611649269782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-71722160896377587112007-11-12T09:03:00.000+00:002007-11-12T09:03:00.000+00:00For NDlundkvist:"You grenies are unbelievable on t...For NDlundkvist:<BR/>"You grenies are unbelievable on this topic. There's only politicans and their left-wing journalists who talk about this consensus-among scientists-crap."<BR/><BR/>Are the following left-wingers?<BR/><BR/>John McCain (R-AZ)?<BR/>George H. W. Bush?<BR/>http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765<BR/>(that was in 1989, before AGW got politicized by the same people who defended tobacco, with similar tactics...)<BR/><BR/>Here's a nice list on consensus: http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm<BR/><BR/>I note that it includes:<BR/>Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the entity that awards Nobel prizes. <BR/><BR/>The 2007 IPCC Report had at least 6 Swedish authors and 4 reviewers. They're easy enough to find: maybe they give seminars at nearby universities, of which you have some good ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-6025699395235156972007-11-12T00:32:00.000+00:002007-11-12T00:32:00.000+00:00You are my new hero.You are my new hero.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-52162996915447297532007-11-11T16:17:00.000+00:002007-11-11T16:17:00.000+00:00Calvin: we couldn't leave it up, the hosting compa...Calvin: we couldn't leave it up, the hosting company was getting too much grief.<BR/><BR/>Joseph: You're quite right - I'm not partisan - what makes you think I'm left wing?<BR/><BR/>NDLundkvist: if there is no such thing as scientific consensus how do you think we arrived at the very technology which you use to send your blog messages, the medicines that make you better, and the processed food you eat? I agree that within the scientific community there are frauds, there is peer pressure, there is distortion, the same as there are in all other spheres of human activity. <BR/><BR/>But the ability to set up models, make predictions, and test and refine them, to duplicate experiments and see if the same results occur, and to monitor the environment with increasing accuracy, AND make the results publicly and transparently available for criticism, is what the scientific method is intended to do.<BR/><BR/>You don't find this with the commercial or political pressure groups.<BR/><BR/>I think your cynicism arises because you see certain groups misuse or selectively use results for their own ends. Of course this needs to be exposed, but with rigour and with examples. I'm as cynical as you, but at the same time, I try to be as critical of my own prejudices as I am of anyone else's. I'm not perfect at doing this of course. That's why I'm open to this kind of dialogue where my opinions and assumptions can be tested.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps you're cynical because you see your lifestyle threatened. Damn right it's threatened.DavidKThorpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04215770376688861114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-27798987747921361892007-11-11T09:31:00.000+00:002007-11-11T09:31:00.000+00:00DT: you say "I can only say, if we haven't got the...DT: you say "I can only say, if we haven't got the scientific consensus then what have we got?"<BR/><BR/>There is no such thing as scientific consensus. Scientific theories is all about non-consensus. Claims of AGW is only a theory as good as.<BR/><BR/>You grenies are unbelievable on this topic. There's only politicans and their left-wing journalists who talk about this consensus-among scientists-crap. <BR/><BR/>**Peer review can easily be confused with peer pressure.**<BR/><BR/>//Greetings from ass-cold Sweden.Dividendumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01567683892874000431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-44140544673024334252007-11-11T02:20:00.000+00:002007-11-11T02:20:00.000+00:00Hmmmm... I suppose it wouldn’t be that difficult t...Hmmmm... I suppose it wouldn’t be that difficult to produce a nonsensical report that appealed to left-wing prejudices.<BR/><BR/>Wait a moment... I thought Sokal did that already.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720409839023747889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-7308689850874383772007-11-10T23:54:00.000+00:002007-11-10T23:54:00.000+00:00Get them with humor! It works because they have no...Get them with humor! It works because they have none.<BR/><BR/>Kudos galore to you, sir. You blinded them with science ;-)weblackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07917937781744578695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-35155851898742697412007-11-10T22:28:00.000+00:002007-11-10T22:28:00.000+00:00David this is absoloutely awesome! Very creative w...David this is absoloutely awesome! Very creative work. Only one point, you should have left it up...there are quite a few links going there and i`d have loved to see it.Calvin Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00899904249648707318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-830129962097272202007-11-10T20:54:00.000+00:002007-11-10T20:54:00.000+00:00You, sir, are brilliant. And I'm not even going t...You, sir, are brilliant. And I'm not even going to check to make sure you really are. You got Rush Limbaugh to look like an ass. That is all the facts I need.<BR/><BR/>Need your car washed, your laundry done, your shoes polished?<BR/><BR/>Just ask. I'm at your service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-75666208759128090272007-11-10T19:09:00.000+00:002007-11-10T19:09:00.000+00:00That was a really excellent hoax, sir. I tip my ha...That was a really excellent hoax, sir. I tip my hat to you!PattyPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15993472814874146929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18727745.post-71468620513482811462007-11-10T17:59:00.000+00:002007-11-10T17:59:00.000+00:00Thank you for doing this.Much appreciated and much...Thank you for doing this.<BR/><BR/>Much appreciated and much enjoyed.<BR/><BR/>For my take, prior to knowing of this post/your role, see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/10/160/92202Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com