tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2763971845744010492..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Freed of any values, Judith Curry slithers and slides and hurtles into deniersvilleSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18784603019924960252015-01-30T07:01:48.396+11:002015-01-30T07:01:48.396+11:00It gets better (or worse). At 401 we get:-
Judith...It gets better (or worse). At 401 we get:-<br /><br />Judith Curry says:<br />28 Jul 2010 at 6:37 AM<br />I would like to suggest that denizens of RC and CP read Peter Gleick’s testimony on scientific integrity. http://www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick_Senate_Commerce_2-7-07.pdf<br /><br />He voices concerns about the following threats to scientific integrity (see especially the last page): appealing to emotions; making personal (ad hominem) attacks; deliberately mischaracterizing an inconvenient argument; inappropriate generalization; misuse of facts and uncertainties; false appeal to authority; hidden value judgments; selectively leaving out inconvenient measurement results.<br /><br />These tactics are common for merchants of doubt. The tactics are relatively uncommon for the watchdog auditors. I suggest that you evaluate your posts and comments by these standards.<br /><br />[Response: Wow. I think the term chutzpah is appropriate here. You could use your time to actually point out all these errors and misrepresentations you claim we’ve made, but instead you simply insunuate that we have no integrity (I think there is a name for that kind of argument….). When you ready to talk about something substantive, we’ll be more than happy to engage, but this kind of pot-shot is no way to encourage a dialogue. – gavin]<br />TrueScepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14001608276540390772015-01-30T02:59:56.630+11:002015-01-30T02:59:56.630+11:00From comment #195. :)
"What a wimpy, pathe...From comment #195. :)<br /><br />"What a wimpy, pathetic backdown. Sorry to be so blunt, Judith, but when you make a claim that Tamino’s review has “numerous factual errors and misrepresentations” it behooves you to actually list the errors and defend your point of view. Don’t just make vague allegations and run away when challenged. Unless you return and clarify your accusations, your credibility in the debate has now reached zero."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72435934790567278722015-01-30T00:39:39.346+11:002015-01-30T00:39:39.346+11:00It was apparent in 2010 that Judith Curry had lost...It was apparent in 2010 that Judith Curry had lost all reason when she defended Montford's book at RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/<br />(just search for her comments from #74 on). In fact, the things she said then made her look like nothing more than a common-or-garden denialist lacking even the most basic critical faculties. Some even asked if she was being impersonated as these comments couldn't have been written by a science PhD, could they? Shortly after that she set up Climate Etc. <br />TrueScepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65912773250750311732015-01-28T11:01:17.502+11:002015-01-28T11:01:17.502+11:00Reporting back after my brief excursion to Climate...Reporting back after my brief excursion to Climate Etc. I did manage to have a little chat with Judy. Here is what she had to say:<br /><br /><i>What problem, exactly? I read your post. I stand by what I have written at Climate Etc. on the subject of Arctic sea ice. David Rose’s headline had an error because he used erroneous information that was posted on the NSIDC web site. The NSIDC website fixed the error, David Rose acknowledged the error in print, and I noted all this on my blog post.</i><br /><br />After that she studiously ignored me. One of her many merry minions tried to convince me that 1.38 million square kilometers is much the same as one million square miles, but failed miserably.<br /><br />I am forced to conclude that Judy et. al. reside in some sort of alternative universe where the laws of physics are very different to our own. Here is the irrefutable evidence:<br /><br /><a href="https://archive.today/23x4v#selection-189.0-203.92" rel="nofollow">https://archive.today/23x4v#selection-189.0-203.92</a>Jim Hunthttp://econnexus.org/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11085606546974050642015-01-28T04:09:03.213+11:002015-01-28T04:09:03.213+11:00KR : "I find it very telling that no denier, ...KR : "I find it very telling that no denier, absolutely none that I can find, has been willing to provide some evidence for their claims regarding Cook et al 2013 by actually doing some research on the subject themselves."<br /><br />If you really, really don't want Schroedinger's cat to be dead, just don't look in the box.<br />Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76056313003904596142015-01-28T04:06:00.318+11:002015-01-28T04:06:00.318+11:00Sou: "Thing is, if any denier wanted to dispu...Sou: "Thing is, if any denier wanted to dispute the results they could easily redo the exercise. The data is all there provided by Cook13."<br /><br />Quite. Cook et al had no difficulty predicting the AGW denier tactics and forestalled them. Nobody could predict Tol's behaviour, or the tactic of "proving" statistically that things must exist even though no examples can actually be found.<br /><br />As for the argument that the reviewers might have got tired and demanding timestamps and rater ID's to prove it, who the hell saw that coming?Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56847936093249320262015-01-28T02:13:11.929+11:002015-01-28T02:13:11.929+11:00@KR
"Anyone can examine and rank that sample...@KR<br /><br /><i>"Anyone can examine and rank that sample ..."</i><br /><br />Moreover it has been made even easier with a webpage customised so any fool can do it:<br /><br /><a href="http://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=rate_papers" rel="nofollow">Rate the papers yourself Mondoman</a>Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2198705495010903912015-01-28T01:56:44.239+11:002015-01-28T01:56:44.239+11:00I find it very telling that no denier, absolutely ...I find it very telling that no denier, absolutely none that I can find, has been willing to provide some evidence for their claims regarding Cook et al 2013 by <b>actually doing some research on the subject themselves</b>. <br /><br />The Cook et al abstracts were reasonably sampled from the literature as a whole, are available on the web, and anyone can examine and rank that sample to see if their results differ. By my estimation you could classify several hundred abstracts over the course of a Saturday, enough for statistical significance, and see whether the denialist claims of lower consensus are supported. <br /><br />Has Mondoman, or anyone else, done this? <b>No.</b> I suspect it's because they know they would only confirm the consensus results, that their assertions are unsupported nonsense.KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58379145645087438262015-01-27T20:49:10.265+11:002015-01-27T20:49:10.265+11:00@Mondoman
You are free and easy with your derisio...@Mondoman<br /><br />You are free and easy with your derision but you just look foolish to any reasonable person. Even if it was true that Sou has only offered "assertions" that is more than you have done. You have only made wild assertions of no substance and offered no analysis of the Duarte paper at all, or not even tried to address any of the points raised by anyone. For you it is just an imperative that the Cook paper must be discredited or your whole bubble construct of denial would be in peril. <br /><br />What is strange is that the Cook exercise was quite straightforward. It clearly documented what was done and those were the results. There is not a lot to criticise or question. He did what he did and these are the numbers that come out. So why do deniers like you lose all objectivity and just mindlessly attack it?<br /><br />If you and your friends really believe that you would get a different result then why don't you do a similar exercise? It would give us a laugh at least.<br /><br />Oh, and here is a hint. (As you are so fond of offering yourself). Do not use the Poptech database of papers. It would open you up to even more ridicule. <br /><br /> Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60967510848422588132015-01-27T15:08:07.282+11:002015-01-27T15:08:07.282+11:00From a supplementary paper by Cook et al:
Discuss...From a supplementary paper by Cook et al:<br /><br /><i>Discussion of the methodology of categorising abstract text formed part of the training period in the initial stages of the rating period. When presented to raters, abstracts were selected at random from a sample size of 12,464. Hence for all practical purposes, each rating session was independent from other rating sessions. <br /><br />While a few example abstracts were discussed for the purposes of rater training and clarification of category parameters, the ratings and raters were otherwise independent. This was discussed in C13; “While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations<br />presented themselves.”<br /><br />Independence of the raters was important to identify uncertainties based on interpretation of the rating criteria, but had little bearing on the final conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the vast majority of rater disagreements were between no position and endorsement categories; very few<br />affected the rejection bin.</i><br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/24_errors.pdf?f=24errors<br /><br />See also my take on Richard Tol's ridiculous behaviour:<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/busted-how-ridiculous-richard-tol-makes.html<br /><br />And from the paper itself:<br /><br /><i>Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. A team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the remaining 2.6% (607). Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.</i><br /><br />http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article<br /><br />Not that I think it should matter. Had two people jointly did various abstracts and then another team of two checked them would have made little to no difference to the outcome. As it was, it was just one person doing one categorisation and one other doing the same thing independently - and where there were differences then a third party stepped in.<br /><br />Thing is, if any denier wanted to dispute the results they could easily redo the exercise. The data is all there provided by Cook13. <br /><br />People like Mondoman wouldn't care to do that. They find it easier to make false allegations from the sidelines. Just as he's too lazy to check the facts for himself - insisting that I do it for him. <br /><br />My time from here on will be billed at $350/hour. Let me know where to send the invoice, Mondoman.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18430535939292966882015-01-27T14:13:43.408+11:002015-01-27T14:13:43.408+11:00Mondoman, "The researchers collaborated when ...Mondoman, "The researchers collaborated when rating" is also an assertion. Where's your evidence of collaboration?<br /><br />Also please learn what an ad hominem is.Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47206670380085584542015-01-27T13:25:20.440+11:002015-01-27T13:25:20.440+11:00Mondoman - I provided ample evidence. There is mor...Mondoman - I provided ample evidence. There is more in the paper itself. Why not read it? (I know, I know, you can't understand it. Too sciency.) <br /><br />There was no opportunity for the raters to collaborate. They downloaded the abstracts independently.<br /><br />As for your sooky tone trolling, you would have got a polite response if you'd been courteous yourself, rather than barging in with insults and personal attacks. Don't come crying now. You are being treated much better than you deserve.<br /><br />I can tell from your comments and predictable behaviour that no amount of evidence would persuade you that climate science is not some giant hoax to make scientists rich at your expense. You probably think that its a New World Order conspiracy of Jewish bankers from the 17th century or some such thing.<br /><br />Just as it is obvious that no matter what evidence was provided or how simply it was presented, you couldn't understand it. Otherwise you'd not have come here in attack mode in the first place.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12140715128457377722015-01-27T11:16:09.531+11:002015-01-27T11:16:09.531+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36910101819384999372015-01-27T10:56:08.388+11:002015-01-27T10:56:08.388+11:00Sou, I see a lot of assertions in your response, b...Sou, I see a lot of assertions in your response, but again no evidence. If you're not sure what "evidence" is (hint: "That the researchers collaborated when rating - they didn't." isn't evidence, but rather an assertion. Assertions need to be backed by evidence), let me know and I can help you out. <br />Again, looking forward to seeing some evidence from you (but not too hopeful :( ).<br /><br />PS - You'd save seemingly two-thirds of the text you write here if you'd leave out the ad-hominems. Think of the feelings of the electrons you're wasting :)Mondomannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21222730362912334302015-01-27T03:58:20.585+11:002015-01-27T03:58:20.585+11:00That's not irony in their stance, Sou, it'...That's not irony in their stance, Sou, it's hypocrisy.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26178371236795263252015-01-27T01:04:16.982+11:002015-01-27T01:04:16.982+11:00Jammy, deniers have a well-earned reputation for d...Jammy, deniers have a well-earned reputation for double standards and inconsistency. As you'll probably have guessed, mondoman didn't attack Judith Curry in the same manner for her throwaway comment of unsubstantiated allegations about Cook13. Neither here nor at Curry's place.<br /><br />And mondoman admits that he isn't capable of telling good science from nonsense (with his "it's a good bet your other claims are as poorly-researched, and also invalid").<br /><br />Typically fake sceptics are willing to "believe" any dumb allegation made against scientists, that is not substantiated. Typically too they haven't the wit to see the irony in their stance. And typically they haven't the strength of character to do any more than make drive-by attacks.<br /><br />He's probably sulking somewhere thinking what a nasty person I am for using his own words against him. Not recognising his own innate nastiness, or that of his heroine, Judith Curry.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8907541312693770152015-01-27T00:20:48.662+11:002015-01-27T00:20:48.662+11:00Why is it people like Mondoman demand such high le...<br /><br />Why is it people like Mondoman demand such high levels of effort to have their allegations refuted but offer absolutely nothing in return? I notice that Sou offered quite a number of points explaining why Duarte's allegations are not substantial. And from Mondoman in return? Zilch, nothing, nada. So typical of deniers.<br /><br />Even a brief look at Duarte's article it is clear it is full of strawmen arguments. Here is one:<br /><br /><i><b>Now, let's look at a tiny sample of papers they didn't include:</b></i> <br /><br />followed by a list of classic denier tracts. Cook documented quite clearly how papers were selected and the method was, as is required, as value free as possible. To start whinging about what was not included completely misses the point of the study.<br /><br />I guess we will not hear back from Mondoman. He knows that the Duarte tosh is indefensible if you actually have to engage with the details. I guess he is one of these people who believes the ridiculous numbers thrown around by deniers such as only 0.3% of scientists ascribe to AGW. <br /> Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47369255187176303642015-01-26T19:59:48.259+11:002015-01-26T19:59:48.259+11:00Getting back to Judy Curry if we may, she did resp...Getting back to Judy Curry if we may, she did respond to me this time around and can therefore no longer claim to be unaware of the issue I raised back in the summer of '13.<br /><br />Now she's ignoring me, but one of her many merry minions is on the case. My most recent riposte:<br /><br /><a href="https://archive.today/eyXy3#selection-14691.0-14715.113" rel="nofollow">https://archive.today/eyXy3#selection-14691.0-14715.113</a><br /><br /><i>Who is it that is in fact the “way too credulous enforcer of absurd memes” here?</i>Jim Hunthttp://econnexus.org/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70333623962559450152015-01-26T18:29:15.526+11:002015-01-26T18:29:15.526+11:00Yes. The WUWT survey that A Scott did got given to...Yes. The WUWT survey that A Scott did got given to Steve McIntyre who promptly buried it. Wonder why? (Apart from the fact that the stats were demonstrably beyond his expertise.)<br /><br />A Scott reckons it's being prepared for publication - yeah, right! Lewandowsky did his survey and published within weeks. The years roll by and no sign of the buried A Scott survey.<br /><br />Do I sense a conspiracy of deniers? :DSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74456574249993888632015-01-26T18:22:30.007+11:002015-01-26T18:22:30.007+11:00Almost forgot:
"Why haven't fake sceptics...Almost forgot:<br />"Why haven't fake sceptics done a similar analysis if you're so certain that this study is "wrong"?"<br /><br />Reminds me of the Lewandowsky poll they so complained about, which they then 'repeated' on WUWT, but decided not to analyse. One can only wonder why...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47763104123333186012015-01-26T18:20:55.423+11:002015-01-26T18:20:55.423+11:00What qualifications does Jose have to make his fal...What qualifications does Jose have to make his false allegations? He's a libertarian PhD student studying psych (if he's still enrolled), who makes a habit of screeching for withdrawal of papers that he doesn't like and wailing "fraud".<br /><br />http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es505183e<br /><br />What about the people who did the study?<br /><br />They included university academics and laypeople. There were scientists with expertise in climate change, chemistry, meteorology, cognitive psychology, environmental science, and geography. The team included students and professors and retired scientists. The team had expertise across a range of disciplines, both in the physical and social sciences. <br /><br />The rating system was highly structured and specific and ensured consistency no matter the individual expertise of people categorising the papers. <br /><br />The ratings were double checked and sometimes triple checked. The results showed a high level of consistency. <br /><br />The results were confirmed by an independent survey of authors of the papers.<br /><br />Could there have been one or two papers rated differently? Maybe. Would it have made any substantial difference to the overall results. Extremely unlikely.<br /><br />Remember, there are almost no papers that dispute that humans are causing global warming these days. Deniers like to imagine otherwise - but they can't produce the goods.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75443383209895641712015-01-26T18:20:29.937+11:002015-01-26T18:20:29.937+11:00I think the claim by Duarte that the raters were b...I think the claim by Duarte that the raters were biased is the biggest laugh I have ever had. It was postulated as a fact by Duarte, and the evidence provided was none. And yet he could have, because *the authors wrote that it could be an explanation for their results!*<br /><br />Upon which they showed using the author ratings that if anything, the raters had been conservative in their ratings based on the abstracts.<br /><br />One wonders why Duarte ignored that...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88485839121073486702015-01-26T17:58:45.025+11:002015-01-26T17:58:45.025+11:00Mondoman why can't I make that claim? Jose did...Mondoman why can't I make that claim? Jose didn't provide any rational evidence and neither did Chuck. You can't just wave your hands and have a hissy fit and claim that I'm unwilling to do provide evidence without any evidence. This entire website is devoted to evidence.<br /><br />If you're willing to write and promote such poorly researched "claims" as Jose Duarte, it's a good bet that you are a science denier and your other claims would be equally invalid. <br /><br />My bet is that you regard the fake scepticism and slurs personal attacks seen on Climate etc is "good science" and that real climate scientists "don't no nuffin'"<br /><br />BTW Here are some of Jose's wrong claims:<br /><br />That mitigation papers should be excluded - wrong.<br /><br />That psych papers were included when they weren't - they were marked "not climate related" and excluded.<br /><br />That the researchers collaborated when rating - they didn't.<br /><br />That raters were "biased" - they weren't. You can check the ratings yourself. He seems to be suggesting that they should have used non-humans to categorise the papers!<br /><br />That raters "weren't qualified" - they were. Plus the findings are supported by similar studies.<br /><br />That the study constitutes "fraud" - utterly ridiculous. The findings were consistent with a separate part of the study where authors themselves rated their own papers. The findings were also consistent with other quite separate studies.<br /><br />That there were papers that the Web of Science search didn't spit out. Well, there are undoubtedly climate papers that would have appeared had a different database been queried -but the results would be very unlikely to have been any different.<br /><br />Jose's entire article is one long emotional rant, not based in fact. The fact that he waves about words like "fraud" without so much as attempting to do his own analysis shows that he's just a nut job.<br /><br />No different to Richard Tol's "they must have got tired"!<br /><br />Why haven't fake sceptics done a similar analysis if you're so certain that this study is "wrong"? Let me guess...<br /><br />Heck - Cook et al have even provided more than 11,000 papers that if you got together with a bunch of fellow fake sceptics, you could dash off your analysis in a couple of weeks. Too lazy. Too scared. All denier talk no guts.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85431866966077125722015-01-26T17:33:15.514+11:002015-01-26T17:33:15.514+11:00Sou, you know that science works by providing evid...Sou, you know that science works by providing evidence, right? You can't just claim "... Jose Duarte didn't find anything wrong with Cook13. ..." without any evidence. His website at the link gives a number of examples of how Cook et al. didn't actually do what they claimed to have done in their Materials & Methods.<br /><br />You can't just wave your hands and go into a hissy fit -- you've got to show why that evidence is either wrong or doesn't back up Duarte's claim. Since you don't seem to want to do that, it's fair for readers to infer that you can't, and thus that your claim that Cook et al 2013 is not scientifically invalid is itself invalid.<br /><br />If you're willing to write and promote such poorly-researched claims as that, it's a good bet your other claims are as poorly-researched, and also invalid. My bet is that's what JC was referring to in implying your post was a "sewer".Mondomannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39082857185300013112015-01-26T16:13:24.885+11:002015-01-26T16:13:24.885+11:00Thanks for coming Mr.. errr..Size. Leave your deta...Thanks for coming Mr.. errr..Size. Leave your details on the piano.<br />NEXT PLEASE!PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.com