|
Post by archer17 on Jul 9, 2010 14:59:52 GMT -4
I already went on record here as to my POV on this topic so I won't bore y'all with a rehash. Regarding the tree-ring "divergence" as it's sometimes called I've read that while higher latitude trees have shown a divergence with temperature trends since the 1960s, lower latitude trees have not. It has been proposed by some that anthropogenic mechanisms are to blame for this: On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causesThe link is in PDF format in case that matters to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 9, 2010 18:06:42 GMT -4
Sheesh, what matters to me is the 300 page length of that thing. Can't you link to, I dunno, a youtube or lolcat summary for us?
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jul 9, 2010 19:05:36 GMT -4
Sheesh, what matters to me is the 300 page length of that thing. Can't you link to, I dunno, a youtube or lolcat summary for us? Sheesh back at you! What's the matter, don't you like to read? Here, try this on for size.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 9, 2010 21:06:11 GMT -4
Sheesh, what matters to me is the 300 page length of that thing. Can't you link to, I dunno, a youtube or lolcat summary for us? Sheesh back at you! What's the matter, don't you like to read? Here, try this on for size. Still to many words. I was thinking more along these lines
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 9, 2010 21:36:29 GMT -4
Would this be the time for snarky anecdotal whining about our weather? And in a generally mild summer, too!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 12, 2010 11:17:22 GMT -4
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]" -East Anglia CRU director Jones to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in 2005.
Can you find the basic problem with this statement?
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jul 13, 2010 22:01:15 GMT -4
Well, it's not a very scientific approach is it. I would have thought he would relish the thought of another scientist evaluating his data.
Unless there is plenty wrong with it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 14, 2010 11:24:51 GMT -4
Well, it's not a very scientific approach is it. I would have thought he would relish the thought of another scientist evaluating his data. Unless there is plenty wrong with it. Bingo. Science is all about trying to prove the data wrong.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 14, 2010 20:49:23 GMT -4
Well, it's not a very scientific approach is it. I would have thought he would relish the thought of another scientist evaluating his data. Unless there is plenty wrong with it. Bingo. Science is all about trying to prove the data wrong. Not quite. Data is just Data, it's not really right or wrong, it's merely information. What the scientific method is based about is the falisfying of the hypothesis created from the data. This can be done by showing that there is a collection issue with the data so the data may not be what it claims to be, but is more often done by showing that the data doesn't support the proposed hypothesis, or actually supports an opposing hypothesis better. But yes, refusing to release data because someone is trying to show you wrong is rather unscientific.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 29, 2010 11:05:08 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 29, 2010 11:10:10 GMT -4
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]" -East Anglia CRU director Jones to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in 2005. Can you find the basic problem with this statement? 1st google hit on Warrick Hughes: Freelance scientist? Uh, yeah. Okay. I don't think I'd release my data to him either
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 29, 2010 12:21:02 GMT -4
Freelance scientist? Uh, yeah. Okay. I don't think I'd release my data to him either So you think scientists should get to choose who has a chance to disprove their theories? "You don't get to tell me I'm wrong unless I agree to let you"?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 29, 2010 12:33:33 GMT -4
Freelance scientist? Uh, yeah. Okay. I don't think I'd release my data to him either I've actually know a man who described himself as a freelance scientist. He did consulting for several companies and used "freelance" to indicate he was not affiliated with a university. Much as a journalist will call himself "freelance" to indicate he is not representing a specific news organization. Similar caveats seem to apply to both types of freelancers, but neither can be dismissed just because of the lack of affiliation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 29, 2010 14:35:03 GMT -4
I have to say, that summary also says to me that he's someone with obvious bias--"Green-stained"?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 2, 2010 16:15:59 GMT -4
Not only are the doomsayers always wrong, but sometimes their overheated (pun intended) rhetoric has real consequences. James Lee was killed by police yesterday after he took hostages in the Discovery Chanel's lobby and threatened to bomb the building if the Discovery Channel didn't give in to his demands: Where did Mr. Lee get these ideas? Perhaps Mr. Gore should take this incident as a caution to turn the rhetoric down a bit, and perhaps he should avoid things like advocating civil disobedience in the cause of fighting Global Warming, or praising the efforts of thousands of angry protestors like Lee was a few years ago, while calling those who don't believe him "morally reprehensible". As Mr. Gore's one time boss Bill Clinton said: "There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do...You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don't demonize them, and don't say things that will encourage violent opposition."
|
|