Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Copenhagen Bombshell:Russia Accuses CRU of Data Manipulation

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Postby Charles » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:09 pm

Now this is rich - people sympathising with the Russians complaianing about the manipulation of information - the RUSSIANS no less! :D
User Avatar
Charles

 
Posts: 14936
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:20 am
Location: Germany
Thanked: 766 times in 568 posts

Postby Ejnar Fjerdingstad » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:41 pm

Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.


Certainly. But then you are largely working from the outside and people will dismiss you with comments like, "but he isn't in a peer reviewed journal" and ignore you whether you were a good scientist or did something curious with the data.


I see the point you're making, but don't quite agree. I doubt that whether or not someone's research is accepted matters to you - your opinion isn't going to change based on that, nor will most other peoples'.

I'm even fairly certain that certain people - many on this site :wink: - couldn't care less if 99% of the scientists in the world were in favor of global warming - they've made up your minds and that's that. Likewise, there are certainly people who couldn't care less if the reverse was true and all educated opinion was that global warming didn't exist.

The beauty of partisanship, as I see it, is that there's no need to research and form your own opinion on anything; there's a ready-made set of opinions out there waiting for you.


You are being quite naive here. What about Climategate? Whoever leaked these E-mails certainly didn't invent their content. Unfortunately for you, that was done by the 'peer-reviewed scientists' supporting AGW (and we know how much those peer reviews stink). How can you possibly overlook that? And why did they invent the completely unfounded "The Himalayan Glaciers are Melting" scare (based on a few unpublished (anecdotal?) results), why did the IPCC accept such tripe? These are facts that simply cannot be explained away. Even if all opponents of AGW were proved to be paid by Exxon, those questions will still remain. For the AGW side in effect dug their own grave, we are just pointing it out.
User Avatar
Ejnar Fjerdingstad

 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:34 am
Location: Frederiksværk, Northern Zealand, Denmark
Thanked: 625 times in 409 posts

Postby Andinistaloco » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:13 pm

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.


Certainly. But then you are largely working from the outside and people will dismiss you with comments like, "but he isn't in a peer reviewed journal" and ignore you whether you were a good scientist or did something curious with the data.


I see the point you're making, but don't quite agree. I doubt that whether or not someone's research is accepted matters to you - your opinion isn't going to change based on that, nor will most other peoples'.

I'm even fairly certain that certain people - many on this site :wink: - couldn't care less if 99% of the scientists in the world were in favor of global warming - they've made up your minds and that's that. Likewise, there are certainly people who couldn't care less if the reverse was true and all educated opinion was that global warming didn't exist.

The beauty of partisanship, as I see it, is that there's no need to research and form your own opinion on anything; there's a ready-made set of opinions out there waiting for you.


You are being quite naive here. What about Climategate? Whoever leaked these E-mails certainly didn't invent their content. Unfortunately for you, that was done by the 'peer-reviewed scientists' supporting AGW (and we know how much those peer reviews stink). How can you possibly overlook that? And why did they invent the completely unfounded "The Himalayan Glaciers are Melting" scare (based on a few unpublished (anecdotal?) results), why did the IPCC accept such tripe? These are facts that simply cannot be explained away. Even if all opponents of AGW were proved to be paid by Exxon, those questions will still remain. For the AGW side in effect dug their own grave, we are just pointing it out.


Ejnar, it's good to be excercising my sleepy brain against your clever (but generally word-twisting) arguments once again. How are ya?

If you read my entire posts, instead of just reading parts of them, you'll see I made no judgment on "Climategate"; nor have I weighed in on the issue in any manner which would lead you to assume such events are "unfortunate" for me or that I "overlooked" anything.

The point I made, first, is that both sides of the debate look first at what they want to see and then try to make data fit into it - this is elementary and it would be very silly indeed for you to assume that it's only happening on one side. The reason you crow about it of course is because you favor the other side. But it's tantamount to screaming that all republican politicians are corrupt - because obviously politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt.

The point I made second is that most folks - such as yourself - already have their minds made up and the evidence at this point hardly matters to such people... insofar as you will continue to ignore anything that disagrees with your view and trumpet that which agrees with it.

Those were my points. I imagine it would be more difficult to disprove them than it would be to invent an opinion I did not express and then argue against that.
User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona, The Great Southwest, United States
Thanked: 68 times in 42 posts

Postby Ejnar Fjerdingstad » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:08 pm

Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.


Certainly. But then you are largely working from the outside and people will dismiss you with comments like, "but he isn't in a peer reviewed journal" and ignore you whether you were a good scientist or did something curious with the data.


I see the point you're making, but don't quite agree. I doubt that whether or not someone's research is accepted matters to you - your opinion isn't going to change based on that, nor will most other peoples'.

I'm even fairly certain that certain people - many on this site :wink: - couldn't care less if 99% of the scientists in the world were in favor of global warming - they've made up your minds and that's that. Likewise, there are certainly people who couldn't care less if the reverse was true and all educated opinion was that global warming didn't exist.

The beauty of partisanship, as I see it, is that there's no need to research and form your own opinion on anything; there's a ready-made set of opinions out there waiting for you.


You are being quite naive here. What about Climategate? Whoever leaked these E-mails certainly didn't invent their content. Unfortunately for you, that was done by the 'peer-reviewed scientists' supporting AGW (and we know how much those peer reviews stink). How can you possibly overlook that? And why did they invent the completely unfounded "The Himalayan Glaciers are Melting" scare (based on a few unpublished (anecdotal?) results), why did the IPCC accept such tripe? These are facts that simply cannot be explained away. Even if all opponents of AGW were proved to be paid by Exxon, those questions will still remain. For the AGW side in effect dug their own grave, we are just pointing it out.


Ejnar, it's good to be excercising my sleepy brain against your clever (but generally word-twisting) arguments once again. How are ya?

If you read my entire posts, instead of just reading parts of them, you'll see I made no judgment on "Climategate"; nor have I weighed in on the issue in any manner which would lead you to assume such events are "unfortunate" for me or that I "overlooked" anything.

The point I made, first, is that both sides of the debate look first at what they want to see and then try to make data fit into it - this is elementary and it would be very silly indeed for you to assume that it's only happening on one side. The reason you crow about it of course is because you favor the other side. But it's tantamount to screaming that all republican politicians are corrupt - because obviously politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt.

The point I made second is that most folks - such as yourself - already have their minds made up and the evidence at this point hardly matters to such people... insofar as you will continue to ignore anything that disagrees with your view and trumpet that which agrees with it.

Those were my points. I imagine it would be more difficult to disprove them than it would be to invent an opinion I did not express and then argue against that.


Even if you could prove that the AGW critics were just as corrupt, and good luck with that, that would not at all save the AGW'ers from having done what I summarized above. It would simply prove that then there were two corrupt groups of people, it could never wash the AGW'ers clean. Science is not politics, you cannot just answer a disclosure of major breaks of correct scientific practices, and misrepresentations of 'results' with a "tu quoque". If something is bad science, it remains bad science whatever its critics might have done themselves.
User Avatar
Ejnar Fjerdingstad

 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:34 am
Location: Frederiksværk, Northern Zealand, Denmark
Thanked: 625 times in 409 posts

Postby Andinistaloco » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:52 pm

Hey dude, mostly climbing in Sedona and working a lot. No mucho. Climb anything fun lately?
User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona, The Great Southwest, United States
Thanked: 68 times in 42 posts

Postby ktnbs » Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:44 pm

Copenhagen bombshell? and I thought there would be photos of a Danish blonde.
User Avatar
ktnbs

 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 8:41 pm
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington, United States
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:39 pm

ktnbs wrote:Copenhagen bombshell? and I thought there would be photos of a Danish blonde.


Hey, this is an intellectual site!
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 637 times in 358 posts

Previous

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.