tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7722588716147889059..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Cook et al Paper Confirms 97% Scientific Consensus - Prompting Silly Conspiracy Theories from Anthony Watts and WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58410403482494850042014-11-25T11:43:54.965+11:002014-11-25T11:43:54.965+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41215349622748434792013-05-29T12:36:53.267+10:002013-05-29T12:36:53.267+10:00Then how do you explain progress in science -- the...Then how do you explain progress in science -- the discarding of old ideas as better ones come along, are tested, and are established? That has been going on since Galileo....David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15632995894222943532013-05-29T12:15:30.274+10:002013-05-29T12:15:30.274+10:00Is it any big secret that you'd better agree w...Is it any big secret that you'd better agree with the hand that feeds you? I've seen too many researchers jumping on the bandwagon because of grant money. As surely as rain follows the plow, the standard model is always correct. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16953699879078335052013-05-23T05:34:44.288+10:002013-05-23T05:34:44.288+10:00David, not in my life. :-)David, not in my life. :-)Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87477288422723009642013-05-18T17:19:18.066+10:002013-05-18T17:19:18.066+10:00David, yes, science isn't done by counting pap...David, yes, science isn't done by counting papers. However, if you're in a situation where a large group of people claim that the science isn't settled and that there isn't a consensus, then I can't think of any other way to determine what level of consensus exists amongst the a scienctific community. I know that many "skeptic" dislike the word consensus, but I can't think a better word to use to describe a scenario in which a large fraction of scientists agree on the fundamentals in a particular science area.Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84732090222755394972013-05-18T15:16:48.862+10:002013-05-18T15:16:48.862+10:00@Ian A It's pretty amazing of David to make th...<a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/cook-et-al-paper-confirms-97-scientific.html?showComment=1368845963803#c6058437106416943629" rel="nofollow">@Ian A</a> It's pretty amazing of David to make that comment, especially after his lazy blog post. <br /><br />His history on some events shows a distinct lack of skill in describing context or analysis let alone adding information (other than information about his own opinion).<br /><br />This thread has been revealing - about a lot of things.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11248878119781900222013-05-18T15:05:52.655+10:002013-05-18T15:05:52.655+10:00Appell is going into overdrive trying to cover his...<i>Appell is going into overdrive trying to cover his arse.</i><br /><br />@MikeH - He might be <i><b>trying</b></i> to cover his arse. He's doing a poor job if he is. He just keeps baring more and more of it. <br /><br />It's not a pretty picture.<br /><br />After a tweet exchange with Revkin, I'm getting the picture that some blog/journos don't want consensus, they think they need dissent. <br /><br />If people agree, they think they won't have anything to write about. They might have to do some work of their own instead of "he said" "she said" followed by "I'm above all that, I'm just the honest broker reporting what people think - one thinks the moon is made of cheese the other not. Gotta give them both a fair and balanced hearing". Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12769856444722912152013-05-18T14:16:20.811+10:002013-05-18T14:16:20.811+10:00"science isn't done by counting papers&qu..."science isn't done by counting papers"<br /><br />Depends on what you are researching!<br /><br />"Leading Voices in the Denier Choir, Conservative Columnists’ Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science"<br />Shaun W. Elsasser, Riley E. Dunlap, American Behavioural Scientist<br /><br />"The conservative “echo chamber” is a crucial element of the climate change denial machine. Although social scientists have begun to examine the role of conservative media in the denial campaign, this article reports the first examination of conservative newspaper columnists. Syndicated columnists are very influential because they reach a large audience. We analyze 203 opinion editorials (“op-eds”) written by 80 different columnists published from 2007 to 2010, a period that saw a number of crucial events and policy proposals regarding climate change. We focus on the key topics the columnists address and the skeptical arguments they employ. The overall results reveal a highly dismissive view of climate change and critical stance toward climate science among these influential conservative pundits. They play a crucial role in amplifying the denial machine’s messages to a broad segment of the American public."<br /><br />http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/6/754.abstract<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60584371064169436292013-05-18T12:59:23.803+10:002013-05-18T12:59:23.803+10:00"A journalist's job is to provide informa..."A journalist's job is to provide information, context and analysis, not to just pass along information as if they're someone's message boy. It's naive to think otherwise."<br /><br />By your own words you are damned. You've provided no context, no analysis, a churlish slant and a very silly straw man argument about the paper. <br /><br />"science isn't done by counting papers" Well duh, thanks for the bleeding obvious Einstein. You know this argument is fallacious. <br /><br />Really reads to me that the green-eye monster has got his grips on David and other similar commentators (they aren't journalists) because Skeptical Science is getting publicity. And once these guys start digging their holes, they don't stop, as evinced in the posts above...Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38866478739385761322013-05-18T11:58:39.971+10:002013-05-18T11:58:39.971+10:00"science isn't done by counting papers.&q..."science isn't done by counting papers."<br /><br />Would you like to be a bit more specific David. Are you suggesting that the authors claim that AGW is proven because there is a consensus in the literature? If so, would you like to point to where they make that claim?<br /><br />From the Consensus Project FAQ<br />"Consensus doesn’t prove human-caused global warming. Instead, the body of evidence supporting human-caused global warming has led to a scientific consensus."<br />http://www.theconsensusproject.com/#evidence<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28955498462032888282013-05-18T10:54:32.198+10:002013-05-18T10:54:32.198+10:00Correct -- science isn't done by counting pape...Correct -- science isn't done by counting papers. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4404116266887968342013-05-18T10:25:38.194+10:002013-05-18T10:25:38.194+10:00Appell is going into overdrive trying to cover his...Appell is going into overdrive trying to cover his arse.<br />In this post he claims "Nor am I "sneering." <br />http://davidappell.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/fallout-from-sks-study.html<br /><br />He is a liar.<br /><br />This is the comment that he left at William Connolley's blog which started it this discussion.<br /><br />"Who cares? Science isn’t done by the number of papers that seem to support a certain position, nor by how many amateurs rank important.<br /><br />This is a meaningless exercise by John Cook (no surprise there)."<br />http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/05/09/university-of-qldskeptical-science-survey-of-climate-research/<br /><br />MikeH<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78065741476719783132013-05-18T06:22:15.271+10:002013-05-18T06:22:15.271+10:00Victor, you know, you have to keep to the party li...Victor, you know, you have to keep to the party line completely -- no deviations!David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50515772514667246182013-05-18T06:17:24.009+10:002013-05-18T06:17:24.009+10:00Hesitantly :-)
These studies, from Oreskes 04 to ...Hesitantly :-)<br /><br />These studies, from Oreskes 04 to Cook now <i>only exist</i> because of the contrarian misinformation campaign. <br /><br />Perhaps we should be more annoyed about the contrarian misinformation campaign? <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38269523630146584582013-05-18T05:07:15.527+10:002013-05-18T05:07:15.527+10:00Blogging is much more effective as writing a comme...Blogging is much more effective as writing a comment that gets lost in rubbish. Old lies keep on coming up and in discussions people still link to older posts of mine. That is much more difficult for a hidden comment.<br /><br />I am looking forward to the cartoon. If it is decently drawn, I will make a t-shirt with it and wear it like a badge of honour. Strange way to threat someone.<br /><br />A colleague of mine called me a climate "sceptic" recently after my EGU talk on the quality of daily temperature data. That was a real threat. :-) Must have been an effective talk. I hope the article will be just as good.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65449401906793648302013-05-18T04:38:40.430+10:002013-05-18T04:38:40.430+10:00A wattism no less!
Proud to be visited by many an...A wattism no less!<br /><br />Proud to be visited by many an anonymous coward :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53529676456121458082013-05-18T04:29:59.266+10:002013-05-18T04:29:59.266+10:00Steve Milloy's a mate of yours, David? Explain...<i>Steve Milloy's a mate of yours, David? Explains a lot.</i><br /><br />This is exactly what bothers me, in part, about all this -- the notion that people have to line up, take a side, accept whatever in order to be part of some team. And if you don't people on that team -- usually anonymously, viz. cowardly -- will insult you for it. <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82748377890534164382013-05-18T04:16:13.218+10:002013-05-18T04:16:13.218+10:00A journalist's job is to provide information, ...A journalist's job is to provide information, context and analysis, not to just pass along information as if they're someone's message boy. It's naive to think otherwise. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41430433785174177362013-05-18T04:12:07.830+10:002013-05-18T04:12:07.830+10:00I don't agree on Steve Milloy on anything I kn...I don't agree on Steve Milloy on anything I know of ... but he, or anyone, still has the right to publish on something someone sends him unsolicited. It breaks no ethical rules. <br /><br />So if you don't want someone writing about something you give them until a certain time, don't give it to them unless you've reached a prior understanding. Period.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80255152041630155182013-05-18T03:12:04.451+10:002013-05-18T03:12:04.451+10:00"A man is known by the company he keeps."...<i>"A man is known by the company he keeps."</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6603097356388474692013-05-18T02:53:40.219+10:002013-05-18T02:53:40.219+10:00Milloy's just a paid shill for oil and tobacco...Milloy's just a paid shill for oil and tobacco companies. Lie down with dogs...Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57922060564096341782013-05-18T02:47:12.703+10:002013-05-18T02:47:12.703+10:00Take this as 'the point':
.."a job ...Take this as 'the point': <br /><br />.."a job that evidently has to be done by scientists, who have pulled off a massive coup of science communication, only to be sneered at by the people who are paid to perform that function themselves." (from the idiottracker)<br /><br />freelance journalist...yeah right...Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41277312898367372272013-05-18T02:40:26.037+10:002013-05-18T02:40:26.037+10:00Ian, not sure. Maybe both.Ian, not sure. Maybe both.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40570908505920711872013-05-18T02:39:29.243+10:002013-05-18T02:39:29.243+10:00Steve Milloy's a mate of yours, David? Explai...Steve Milloy's a mate of yours, David? Explains a lot.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73213596038137550062013-05-18T02:36:40.128+10:002013-05-18T02:36:40.128+10:00A complete lack of ethics. Stolen emails anyone?A complete lack of ethics. Stolen emails anyone?Ian Anoreply@blogger.com