tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post3417670825051639819..comments2024-03-17T18:37:36.377-07:00Comments on Geotripper: Is Climate Change a Scientific Controversy?Garry Hayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-79450986018195683392010-03-10T03:21:17.192-08:002010-03-10T03:21:17.192-08:00Jeanette, when it comes to obfuscation, Anthony Wa...Jeanette, when it comes to obfuscation, Anthony Watts is the example at which the bar is set. A recent post of his:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/<br /><br /><br />Is an example of the pathological content that the weatherman posts to his blog. In it, he tries to make the assertion that the two data sets are contradictory, when in fact, they are unrelated.<br /><br />Obfuscation at its finest!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-23662289856299667712010-03-06T14:53:12.138-08:002010-03-06T14:53:12.138-08:00Thanks Bryan. After mentioning your blog in two po...Thanks Bryan. After mentioning your blog in two posts I noticed I misspelled your name. I fixed them.Garry Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-87106377792098242402010-03-06T14:12:09.765-08:002010-03-06T14:12:09.765-08:00Hmmm, that is something worth considering. I never...Hmmm, that is something worth considering. I never really considered that journal citations could be an argument of authority (even if it is accepted practice). <br /><br />After reading that, I thought about it for a bit. I think what makes journal citations an acceptable variant of the argument of authority is it points to a more detailed argument than you are capable of making (and usually is only tangential to the objective of the study). <br /><br />An example from my thesis is me citing Swisher et al., 1993 for some ash dates that were obtained in my study area. I didn't have the funding, or the time, to replicate this data set so I just used their paper. It didn't really matter in the scope of my thesis. The only thing that mattered is that I could correlate the ash beds.<br /><br />When I presented my thesis at GSA, I got in an argument with a worker who told me that my ash dates were wrong. I pointed out they weren't my ash dates, and if another paper has been published that corrects the dates I'd gladly use the corrected data set. He said there wasn't a more recent paper, he just didn't like the techniques of that paper. I politely told him I used Swisher et al., 1993 because it was the most recent publication. If he were to publish a study correcting the ash dates, I'd cite his paper instead. <br /><br />The point is I don't think using Swisher's paper is an argument of authority, in this situation. Rather, by citing his paper, I was directing people's arguments to a useful venue. <br /><br />Anyway, good article (very thought provoking :). Looks like you hooked a denier as well). Sadly, while it seems there is a growing consensus among scientists, climate change has become a political issue. And while (in a perfect world) science should inform policy, I haven't seen that happen too often in recent years. Thanks very much for the link.Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09172331419528519432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-60271738979727379832010-03-06T10:06:52.579-08:002010-03-06T10:06:52.579-08:00Jeanette, thanks for your comment, but you miss th...Jeanette, thanks for your comment, but you miss the point. I attend very carefully to the science. You have to ask yourself who stands to profit from discrediting the vast majority of climatologists who accept the evidence that global warming is related to human activity. That's what the list I posted above is all about. I know I'm not going to convince anyone to change their beliefs with any evidence I could present, because beliefs are powerful things, and they are not always based on a careful consideration of the facts. Opinion about climate change in our society is being influenced by a calculated and well-funded public relations campaign by the same kinds of consultants who kept doubts about the cigarette-cancer connection and the declining ozone level going for so long.Garry Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-65154195346231453712010-03-06T05:45:05.157-08:002010-03-06T05:45:05.157-08:00Garry Hayes, please read wattsupwiththat.com with ...Garry Hayes, please read wattsupwiththat.com with an eye to the science and you might not choose to stay blinded by the money that has subverted scientific organizations. Check the International Society of <br />Physicists, the Royal Society of Physics, and the Royal Society of Chemists (names might not be exact). Check on how much of the IPCC reports depend on peer reviewed literature. Check on the obfuscation of science and the scientific method by CRU, NASA, GISSTEMP, NCDC, etc. and the eay they are cooking the books (adjusting the raw temperature data). <br />Geologists in particular should be most knowledgeable about the tremendous natural changes our Earth's climate continues to "cycle" through. Check on the physics of CO2 and I think you will notice that the science is not settled. Finally, follow the money -- See Joanne Nova's recent blog.<br /><br />I write this because I recently found your blog and enjoy it greatly. Please attend more carefully to the science, however.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01811175315920598010noreply@blogger.com