All you can do is laugh.
Brandon Shollenberger writes at Lucia’s about the new Fuzzy Math consensus “proof” paper from the ever entertaining John Cook at Skeptical Science, rated with the help of 27 of the SkS kidz club. The method is simple:
“Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.”
With a simple premise like that, what could go wrong? Well for starters, they don’t seem to understand what the word “independent” means. Shollenberger continues:
==============================================================
That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that people would make topics in the SKS forum like:
Does this mean what it seems to mean?
second opinion??
how to rate: Cool Dudes: The Denial Of Climate Change…
That’s right. The “independent” raters talked to each other about how to rate the papers. This must be some new form of independence I’ve never heard of. I’m not the only one thrown off by this. Sarah Green, one of the most active raters, observed the non-independence:
But, this is clearly not an independent poll, nor really a statistical exercise. We are just assisting in the effort to apply defined criteria to the abstracts with the goal of classifying them as objectively as possible.
Disagreements arise because neither the criteria nor the abstracts can be 100% precise. We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow.
One must wonder at the fact an author of the paper calls the work independent despite having said just a year earlier, “we would never be able to claim” it is independent. Perhaps there is some new definition for “never” I’m unaware of.
And it gets even more hilarious. Read it all at Lucia’s.
For those who don’t know Inigo Montoya:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I posted this over at Lucia’s site. But it bears repeating:
A survey of 10,000 letters to Santa Claus found that 97% of authors accepted that reindeer pulling a sleigh is the most common means of Christmas present transport around the globe.
Get the list of papers.
They only counted 78 papers as “Rejecting AGW” that means they counted papers authored by Skeptics as either “Endorse AGW” or “No AGW position”.
You’re correct Anthony – all you can do is laugh.
And I am rolling around laughing at just how ludicrous you and all you worshippers sound, as you slide further and further into irrelevance.
If you want to make yourself relevant again, you can join in the debate on the best approach to deal with climate change. But while you keep denying that it is happening, you just make yourself look foolish.
“mandas says:
May 15, 2013 at 7:36 pm
If you want to make yourself relevant again, you can join in the debate on the best approach to deal with climate change. But while you keep denying that it is happening, you just make yourself look foolish.”
Quote of the week?
The fact that they feel the desperate need to ‘prove’ a consensus, and the lengths to which they will go to do so are very revealing regarding the stage of this whole debate.
All you have to do is ask Cook,
“Did you categorize any papers as “Endorse AGW” or “No AGW position” that were written by skeptics?”
Name one person here who denies that the climate changes. One. One name. Just name one.
Behind some of the vanilla monikers here are real scientists (atmospherics, physics, geophysics, geology, climate, etcetera) doing real research work at real science institutions. Some have been doing it for decades. They teach, and present papers.
Isn’t Skeptical Science’s Mr. Painter a former police cop with a “hobby” in climate change he picked up 6.5 years ago in 2006? Or John Cook who got a Bachelors in physics in the 90s then spent 10 years running cricket and cartoon blogs and worked as a web programmer until he got climate change religion three years ago in 2010?
So don’t you waltz over here waving your sparkler like some effeminate cruise director who doesn’t realize he got on the wrong cruise. There’s more science discussed on this blog than Skeptical Science knows exists. You seem incapable of realizing it yourself.
ROFLMAO!!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516
“Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus “at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews”
I agree. Get the list of papers, so we can verify their work. (Like watching paint dry, mind you….)
Who bankrolls Skeptical Science? Rockefeller Brothers Fund?
Ya gotta feel a bit sorry for Cook … he threw away a career in cartooning, to urgently and nobly save the world.
Now it is starting to appear that the world does not need saving, at least not right now, and even if it later does, we have time to do it properly.
I think you will find Mr Cook will only get noisier from now on.
All the news sites where this is being posted are censoring dissenting comments.
mandas says:
May 15, 2013 at 7:36 pm
“…If you want to make yourself relevant again, you can join in the debate on the best approach to deal with climate change. But while you keep denying that it is happening, you just make yourself look foolish…”
You silly man das ( pun deliberate! 🙂 …. you need to read a little more and ramble a little less.
The debate is about how much the climate is warming, and whether this is likely to be catastrophic, and how much man contributes to that warming, and how it (climate) is regulated.
You would do yourself a favour by joining in the debate, rather than taking the simplistic approach that all is known and running around telling us we are doomed.
But, I predict you will come back with the standard non informative content free riposte: “… you think it is a conspiracy!…” and “…well funded oil lobby…” and “…catastrophe… its already too late…..!”.
Poptech says: May 15, 2013 at 8:59 pm
ROFLMAO!!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516
“Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus “at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews”
——————-
GOLD !! I always had a nagging suspicion that Scooter was a ‘she’.
“markx says:
May 15, 2013 at 9:16 pm”
Not only did he bin his cartooning career, he gave up studying actual science beforehand?
The ABC (Australian BC) had this on the radio news bulletin this afternoon while we were driving home from Sydney to Arding (600km). Cook was interviewed and I didn’t catch what he said because I was falling about laughing too much. This is an all time low for the ABC. I now have clear evidence of their complicity in this fraud (CAGW). I look forward to when the current federal government is no longer in power and hopefully there are some funding cuts to this overblown mob of windbags. But I don’t suppose they will get the message even then :-(.
Polycritic says:
“……Name one person here who denies that the climate changes. One. One name. Just name one…..”
Wow! That’s just…….. wow!
If any of you truly think that there are people who comment and post here who do not believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for it, then you are living more in denial than I thought. How about you read some of the comments before putting your fingers to the keyboard next time.
If the debate here was truly about how much the climate is changing, and what to do about it, then I would be 100% behind everything that goes on. But its not.
There are a staggering number of posts that make all sorts of nonsensical claims about things like a coming ice age, or cosmic rays, or sunspots, or its all natural (ENSO, AO, etc), or its all based on flawed models, or its a conspiracy to install a socialist world government, etc, etc. Then there is the cheer squad, which is happy to criticise actual scientific papers without ever having read them. And if you truly think that is not the case, then you have not been paying the slightest bit of attention to what goes on.
@mandas – answer the question first then have your rant.
Name one person here who denies that the climate changes. One. One name. Just name one?
Mandas,
You’ve moved the goal posts with “and that humans are responsible for it”. There are many articles and comments on this site which show that natural processes account for various changes in the earth’s climate. Many others that take the IPCC position but redo the calcuations (frequently coming up with a much lower CO2 sensitivity – one that is more in line with actual temperature data). By taking the un-proven hypothesis that climate change is caused by human action as fact unfortunately leads to actions detrimental to human life and frequently causes more harm than good. If you don’t get the science right first you end up looking foolish and creating a solution to a problem that does not exist – often creating more problems via the rule of unintended consequences.
As to critcism of “scientific papers” – this is how science works. And as to the concensus; to paraphrase Einstein: No number of papers will prove me right, it only takes one to prove I’m wrong.
Surly scientific papers are judged by quality over quantity.
After reading lucia’s thread, …
It is truly shocking that we are letting people like this dictate important public policy and our energy usage.
I mean we can laugh at the antics that went on behind the scenes here, but these PR exercises produced by dedicated cult-like AGW believers are actually changing how human society is managed.
Bill Illis says:
May 16, 2013 at 4:30 am
Yep. Head of nail, meet ball of pein.
Note also, as Poptech points out upstream, that everywhere this muck is being spread they are not allowing anyone to filter it. Disturbs the meme old chap. We can’t have that.
There is a fundamental lack of basic understanding at play.
It’s that all too convenient ‘97%’ figure being bandied about.
What is it with warmists and their addiction to the ‘97%’ meme?