|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2009 : 20:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, there has been no indication of fraud whatsoever, not even slightly. |
If you say so. I find the emails concerning. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 12/17/2009 20:51:50 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 21:06:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
I find the emails concerning. |
Have you even looked into what was meant by phrases like "hide the decline?"
There's no evidence of fraud because there was no fraud. Everything about the data manipulation in question has been carried out above-board in the appropriate journals. The "trick" was published in Nature, forcryingoutloud. Besides, we've had pretty good thermometers since 1960. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 22:51:44 [Permalink]
|
Phil Plait weighs in:
Randi, skepticism, and global warming
...So what are we to make of all this?
One is that anyone, everyone, is capable of making mistakes, from grand to minor, from basic ones we never should have made to ones that are inevitable. Skeptics make these same mistakes, too. Even noted skeptics. I’ve done it, Randi’s done it, every human has done it. Apropos of exactly this, Michael Shermer changed his stance on global warming after sufficient evidence swayed him.
Another is that even skeptics can be quick to jump to conclusions based on our own preconceived notions and methodology. Randi made an error, yes. Pointing that out politely and clearly is fine, as can be seen by the fact that he followed up on his post once he was given better data. But the ways in which many people attacked him were, in my opinion, unfair. If someone has a history of spinning the truth, of lying, of distorting reality for their own agenda, then sure, have at them. But when it’s someone who has devoted their life to prying the scales from everyone’s eyes, I think they’ve earned a modicum of decorum when they make a mistake.
Of course, on blogs (either writing them or commenting on them) it’s very easy to simply react. Again, we have all done this, and usually with some regret later. I’ve had to go back and retract things I’ve written when better evidence has arisen, or simply when someone has pointed out where I blew it... |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 01:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dv82matt
I find the emails concerning. |
Have you even looked into what was meant by phrases like "hide the decline?" |
Just what I've seen on the news.
| There's no evidence of fraud because there was no fraud. Everything about the data manipulation in question has been carried out above-board in the appropriate journals. The "trick" was published in Nature, forcryingoutloud. Besides, we've had pretty good thermometers since 1960. |
At this point I don't think I'd take your word for it if you told me the sky is blue. I'll look into it and revise my views in concert.
~
I'm going to stop posting here indefinitly probably permanently. It's just not a worthwhile use of my time and it gets me too worked up. Ciao. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 06:28:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, there has been no indication of fraud whatsoever, not even slightly. |
If you say so. I find the emails concerning.
|
The "fudge factor" which denialists (and ignorant media and their money-takers) are screaming about is an integral part (pun intended) of Fast-Fourier Transform calculations which is used when analyzing frequency patterns in raw data.
Often used in audio processing, but used elsewhere too.
Nothing fishy, but the fudge factor has to be there in order to produce accurate calculations. It's a fundamental flaw in the FFT algoritm.
I'm sure Ricky could explain more about it.
Edited: spelling. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/18/2009 07:34:19 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 09:13:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
At this point I don't think I'd take your word for it if you told me the sky is blue. I'll look into it and revise my views in concert. |
Why, has Dave misled you at any point? At any rate, you might want to start here. It explains the "trick" to "hide the decline." By the way, most people who believe the lie that the emails are an indication of fraud couldn't even accurately state what the "decline" refers to. Hint: it has nothing to do with temperatures.
| I'm going to stop posting here indefinitly probably permanently. It's just not a worthwhile use of my time and it gets me too worked up. Ciao. |
That would be a shame. Your contributions here are appreciated. But if you're able to clear up misconceptions concerning the nature of the stolen emails, wouldn't that be a good use of your time?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/18/2009 09:16:23 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 10:12:24 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt:
I'm going to stop posting here indefinitly probably permanently. It's just not a worthwhile use of my time and it gets me too worked up. Ciao. |
You're posts here go back several years, and your contributions are valued. I always hate to see a member in good standing leave us. Most of us have been on the "other side" of a frustrating debate. There are a lot of strong personalities here and sometimes it gets rough. But all in all, what comes out is a clearer understanding of whatever the subject is that's being debated. I will therefor urge you to reconsider. Your voice counts. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 10:36:53 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
I have no sympathy for the fact that people are saying mean things about him when he's treating the subject at hand with such a tremendous lack of thoughtfulness. |
Randi deserves to be criticized, even strongly, for not applying basic critical thinking skills, of which he is a master, just like I criticized him over the FMSF stuff. But I just don't get the meanness thing. It's an emotional response and it doesn't serve the dialog in that it's more likely to cause bad feelings than it is to educate. I happen to agree with Phil Plait, that if someone is regularly willfully lying and full of crap, that's a different story, and those people do indeed deserve our derision and contempt. But Randi is not that person. For my part, I will continue to love the guy and be disappointed over the content of his recent Swift posts. And I have made that clear both here and on facebook. As I said before, almost the entire skeptical community is critical of those posts and my guess is that this isn't over yet.
I just, for the life of me, can't see how meanness in this case does anything but demonstrate to all of those looking on that skeptics can be crass and uncivil when the default should be to point out the error, even in the strongest terms, without resorting to emotional outbursts that I see as counter productive.
Randi made a huge mistake. And that should be the focus of our criticism.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 11:40:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Randi deserves to be criticized, even strongly, for not applying basic critical thinking skills, of which he is a master, just like I criticized him over the FMSF stuff. But I just don't get the meanness thing. It's an emotional response and it doesn't serve the dialog in that it's more likely to cause bad feelings than it is to educate. I happen to agree with Phil Plait, that if someone is regularly willfully lying and full of crap, that's a different story, and those people do indeed deserve our derision and contempt. But Randi is not that person. For my part, I will continue to love the guy and be disappointed over the content of his recent Swift posts. And I have made that clear both here and on facebook. As I said before, almost the entire skeptical community is critical of those posts and my guess is that this isn't over yet.
I just, for the life of me, can't see how meanness in this case does anything but demonstrate to all of those looking on that skeptics can be crass and uncivil when the default should be to point out the error, even in the strongest terms, without resorting to emotional outbursts that I see as counter productive.
Randi made a huge mistake. And that should be the focus of our criticism. |
I'm not saying that Randi should have been the target of mean comments, I'm saying that as soon as he started whining about people being mean to him, I lost all sympathy. Childishness shouldn't be answered with childishness, especially not from someone in Randi's position. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 12:05:57 [Permalink]
|
I like this blog post. As seen from another direction, what has gone down this week may be seen positively, when thinking about the skeptic community in general.
Randi and the Maturation of Skepticism by Steve Thoms of Skeptic North.
…When Randi posted his article, the skeptic blogs tore it to pieces! This is a very, very good sign that maybe we're maturing as an intellectual / popular movement. If Randi had posted something like this in 1997, it would have set the agenda for the entire JREF, and maybe would have set the tone for the whole of organized skepticism. But people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer have taught us very well, and we generally have a good understanding that no one is above criticism or scrutiny, and even the best skeptics can express some profoundly un-skeptical analysis from time to time.
If this Randi ordeal has taught us anything, could it be that maybe organized skepticism is no longer a top-down community, but a bottom-up movement? It strikes me that the leaders and spokespeople no longer get to set the agenda by virtue of their position, eloquence, and skill. Just like in the meat-grinder that is the peer review process in the scientific community, an idea in the skeptic community must pass-muster. Skepticism 2.0, for all the dangers of amateurism, also brings to the table a base-level of amateur-peer review, one that which not even the mightiest among us are capable of contravening.
AGW denialism (yes, denialism) is, in the words of a prominent Canadian skeptic, the greatest shame of the skeptical community, and this uproar has shown that most of us accept AGW. It's up to the rest of us to start stamping out this AGW denialism fire that goes against the existing scientific consensus… |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 14:15:09 [Permalink]
|
Over at randi.org, James is trying to defend himself. But reading it, it seems to me he mostly manages to shoot himself in the foot.
I really hope that Phil Plait (or someone equally able to convey science in layman's terms) sits down with him and really explains the basic science to him, because right now... it's a mess.
The Amazing (yes, I still think he is, Amazing... sort of...) Randi:
| My commentary was concerned with my amateur confusion about the myriad of natural phenomena that obviously bring about worldwide climate changes and whether we can properly assign the cause to anthropogenic influences. Yes, I'm aware of the massive release of energy -- mostly heat -- that we've produced by exhuming and burning oil, natural gas, and coal. We've also attacked forests and turned them into fuel by converting them into paper at further energy expense, paper that is also burned, in turn. My remarks, again, are directed at the complexity of determining whether this GW is anthropogenic or not. |
If I didn't knew better, I'd say it almost reads as if Randi is thinking that it's the heat from burning oil that is causing planet Earth to get warmer...
Can someone else read the article, and tell me if I'm all out to sea, or if my initial reaction is understandable. I take pride in my English skills, but I can't discount the possibility that the language barrier is playing a trick on me.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 14:20:39 [Permalink]
|
Mab, some of us discussed Randi's 2nd post on page 2 of this thread. But in summary, no it isn't just you or a language barrier. Randi's comments are strange to say the least.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/18/2009 14:21:35 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
James Randi’s current take on Global Warming
