Monday, July 1, 2013

Get out your tin foil hats, people!

So, visiting over at John's blog and reading about how we should reject the notion of anthropogenic climate change because he cites sources (like globalwarmingskeptic.com) as "proof" that it's not happening.

I ask the fellas there, "But NASA, the AMA, the AMS and other very legitimate sources say that 97% of climatologists say climate change is real and likely due to human factors. Do you believe that NASA, the AMA and AMS are all lying or do you think they're all fooled, because they haven't gone to globalwarmingskeptic.com to learn the Truth?"

No answer beyond "I see you can't refute my sources!"

I ask, "I'm not a scientist, but I am a reasonable person. On what basis would I suspect that NASA, the AMA and AMS are lying/wrong and globalwarmingskeptic.com is right?"

The answer is to denigrate these scientists as also believing that gay people marrying is a good thing and...

and these same “scientists” go on record as believing in evolution!

And Trabue claims he is rational.


Dang them "scientists" and their lying ways.

105 comments:

Marshall Art said...

"So, visiting over at John's blog and reading about how we should reject the notion of anthropogenic climate change because he cites sources (like globalwarmingskeptic.com) as "proof" that it's not happening."

Neither an honest nor rational representation of the discussion over at John's blog, to which you fail to link.

"I ask the fellas there, "But NASA, the AMA, the AMS and other very legitimate sources say that 97% of climatologists say climate change is real and likely due to human factors."

They all say the same thing and you believe this means more than agreeing with a premise? In other words, did they all conduct their own surveys which all came up with the same results? I don't think so.

And the issue is that the 97% figure is erroneous and not an honest representation of the facts.

It equally erroneous to compare an entity like NASA with a blog rather than to the sources the blog cites. The blog is reporting counterpoint to the AGW proponents.

It was put to you nothing more ominous than to research the opposition to AGW rather than to simply swallow the AGW line as if there could be no legitimate counter arguments.

OR, like Geoffrey, you could be totally closed minded, as if you've done your own extensive research, and pretend there could not possibly be legitimate opposition. Because that's honest.

Dan Trabue said...

The point is, Marshall, that they are saying that NASA and the AMA and the AMS are all deliberately lying, spreading false information. THAT sort of conspiracy theory behavior is nutty.

Do you know why conspiracy theories that require a massive cover up amongst thousands of people from a wide variety of backgrounds is so unbelievable as to call into question your reasoning?

Do YOU believe that NASA is part of conspiracy to spread false news?

They would refuse to answer that question directly. I suspect that even the craziest amongst us recognize how crazy it sounds to say, "UH, yes, NASA is conspiring to fool the world. The AMA and AMS and other serious groups are all cooperating with NASA in this scam."

Do you recognize how crazy that sounds?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

OR, like Geoffrey, you could be totally closed minded, as if you've done your own extensive research, and pretend there could not possibly be legitimate opposition. Because that's honest.

Leave other people out of it, Marshall. I'm not even talking about climate change here, not so much, but about the craziness of conspiracy theories. Can there be skepticism amongst scientists about various theories and interpretations of data? Of course, that is what science does.

I'm not talking about that in this post.

I'm talking about the craziness of suggesting that these various serious organizations are participating in a vast cover up to promote something they know to be false.

And that is why I kept trying to get them to answer directly: Do you really believe that NASA and these other organizations are actually participating in a deliberate scheme to lie to the world?

Do you? Will you answer that question directly?

If not, go away, I'm not here to talk with the tin foil hat crowd, not today.

Bubba said...

And, Marshall, don't try to put this issue in any larger context, by pointing out that Dan Trabue indulges conspiracy theories of his own. He still thinks the Bush administration lied about WMDs, even though the entire international community drew the same conclusions (even nations that opposed invading Iraq), Saddam certainly behaved as if he had WMD's, and the aftermath confirmed that he had a weapons program to produce WMD's. One could conclude that Bush was (fortunately) mistaken about the progress Saddam was making, but it takes a conspiratorial mind to ignore the facts (and the cease-fire agreement that Saddam repeatedly violated) to accuse Bush of "the very SERIOUS and real scandals of invading a sovereign nation unprovoked and on false pretenses," but this comment from just two weeks back is quite beside the point.

And certainly don't bring up the sheer lunacy of other, quite prominent leftists who Dan has defended without shame. Obama's spiritual mentor and former pastor used the pulpit to accuse the United States government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide against blacks, and rather than denounce the demagogue, Dan defended him as a "man of God" and accused us his critics of a "digital lynching."

Here's what you have to understand, Marshall: when Dan quoted his pastor's sermon on showing grace by giving people the benefit of the doubt, the reference was to people like Osama bin Ladin, who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. He never did and never will intend to extend the benefit of the doubt to his own political opponents, be they politicians like Bush or Palin or private citizens like you and me. You can see this from the post written immediately prior to his gushing about that grace-filled sermon: those bloggers who dared show him the door, he denigrated by speculating that they are guilty of cowardice, intellectual laziness, or simple indecency.

Your job is to play along with his hatchet jobs, either proving his point or joining him in condemning your own side.

He picks the tune, you must dance to it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

1) I have never claimed nor would I ever claim to have done my own research on climate change. What I have done is evaluate the sources of information and concluded - fairly reasonable I should add - that the anti-global warming crown know nothing about science in general, or the many strands of research in particular that weave in to the climate change model. That isn't science, it's just the ability to read, something at which you, Art, have repeatedly demonstrated no ability.

2) I think Dan misses an important part of the whole conspiracy-mongering, one pointed out repeatedly by Esquire columnist Charlie Pierce: money. According to the conspiracy theorists there is more money available to scientists who get along and go along with the whole anthropogenic global warming theory while scientists who oppose it don't get any money.

Because the whole anti-global warming argument is self-contradictory - there is no evidence of global warming except when there is and that's just weather and human beings can't effect the weather except when they do and it's too late to do anything about it anyway - it's easier to just make fun of it and walk away. Like creationism, it isn't a theory and it isn't science; like Holocaust Deniers, the anti-global warming crowd are not just ignorant (although many of them are just that), but actively hostile to a reality that is already effecting billions of people around the globe.

I think Dan's preference to "engage" them is futile because he just isn't speaking the same language these folks are speaking. Art's and Bubba's comments demonstrate that clearly. Call them what they are, point and laugh, and move on without responding to their ridiculous attempts to engage in argument with points that have no merit.

Dan Trabue said...

I removed one of Bubba's comments that was entirely off topic. I left the second comment that is entirely off topic to make a point.

OFF topic (just this one time, to illustrate the point):

Bubba, in fact, I do not/did not think that there was a vast global conspiracy to hide facts about the Iraq invasion. I never said that. I don't believe that.

I do and did have a healthy skepticism about those in power (whether that's a Bush or Obama or a Hussein) when it comes to making excuses to take lives, especially vast destruction of lives. I think that's entirely appropriate.

But I never said nor do I think that there was ever a conspiracy to hide facts amongst the various US entities and other nations.

Why?

Even though I distrusted the Bush administration, why did I not think there was a conspiracy amongst tens of thousands of people from various nations with various agendas and philosophies?

[Here, we are back on the topic of this post, so I'll make it easy to see and read]:

BECAUSE, BELIEVING IN SUCH WIDESPREAD CONSPIRACIES INVOLVING MULTIPLE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND AGENCIES, ACROSS MULTIPLE NATIONS IS UNLIKELY TO THE POINT OF BEING CRAZY.

That, Bubba, Marshall, is the point of this post. Now, I will entertain comments ON topic. But the topic (since you appear to have missed the point) is NOT climate change, it's widespread conspiracy theories and how crazy they are.

Now, if you'd like to talk about the NASA/climate change thing, then here's your chance:

NASA has stated that 97% of climate scientists believe that the global climate is heating up and that there is likely a human contribution as at least partially causing it. NASA cites various other groups such as the AMA and the American Meteorological Society, and many other serious scientific organizations in the US and abroad, as agreeing with this notion.

The question you can answer, if you want, is: DO you believe that NASA is lying and part of a conspiracy to make up facts about climate change for some reason?

OR

Do you think NASA has been duped and is simply erroneously passing on information because they haven't heeded the wisdom of sites like the Global Warming Skeptics website?

OR

Do you think NASA actually thinks this is accurate, and with some good reason?

I'm saying that those who buy in to option 1 sound deluded to the point of being crazy and, if this is true, all they have to do is provide the evidence that NASA, the AMA and the AMS are collaborating to scam the world.

But, lacking any evidence for such a claim, hopefully we can all agree that the claim sounds improbable to the point of sounding crazy.

That is the topic. Any on-topic comments?

Dan Trabue said...

Geoffrey...

Call them what they are, point and laugh, and move on without responding to their ridiculous attempts to engage in argument with points that have no merit.


Well, that's what I'm doing today.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba, this is a polite conversation. The topic is conspiracy theories and how they are nutty.

Do you understand this?

You have one chance to participate in this conversation, doing so politely and as a mutual conversation, with give and take.

Your price to buy into this conversation is to answer a question (since you seem to be dancing around all over the place). The purpose of the question is to identify if you are one of the crazies or a reasonable person.

The question you should answer is:

Do you think NASA et al are part of a conspiracy to deliberately lie and twist information to deliberately fool the world into believing that climate change is a real concern?

If you'd like to converse here, I'm politely asking that you answer this question first.

If you don't want to participate, you are free to leave.

Thank you.

Bubba said...

"Your price to buy into this conversation is to answer a question (since you seem to be dancing around all over the place). The purpose of the question is to identify if you are one of the crazies or a reasonable person."

Like I said, you desire only one of two types of responses: I should prove that I'm one of the crazy conservatives or demonstrate that I'm a "good conservative" and join you in denouncing the excesses that are supposedly unique to my side.

(You're not even willing to link to the "crazies" so we can see what they're actually saying.)

I'm not dancing around the issue; I'm pointing out the game you're playing and calling you out on it.

This ain't a courtroom, you're not a lawyer, I'm not on trial, and you're clearly not interested in a polite and mutual give-and-take.

Dan Trabue said...

My blog. My rules. You can come here like a respectful adult and abide by my rules, or you can go away.

For what it's worth, I'm not asking for one of two answers. I'm asking an incredibly simple question:

DO. YOU. THINK. NASA. IS. DELIBERATELY. LYING?

You can answer that in any number of ways. You could say...

Yes, I think they are deliberately lying in an effort to fool the world and get rich on all the climate change money that's out there (even though that sounds crazy, you can say it).

or

No, I don't have any reason to think that.

or

I don't have enough evidence to know if they're deliberately lying, but I do think the claim is mistaken.

or

I think they are guilty of sloppy science and have bought into the MSM claim that 97% of climatologists believe this without really researching it well enough...

Or with whatever answer you think is apt. I'm not limiting you to two answers, but I am insisting that you answer the question.

Why? Because if you are a conspiracist, then you're making irrational, impaired claims with no evidence and this is not the place to showcase mental illness.

Will you respect the rules or go away?

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, here is the link to the conversation in question.

For the record, one belligerent seems to be standing loud and proud on the "Yes, they're all lying to get rich" nutwagon. The other belligerent keeps hinting that they're all lying and plotting without coming out and clearly stating so.

Read away, if it amuses you. That conversation was not the point of this post, though. The point was that conspiracy theorists tend to be irrational and crazy sounding.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba, I don't think I've been unclear: The cost of your commenting here is answering my question.

I'm asking politely that you do this or go away. Once you've answered the question, we can take it from there and consider other ON TOPIC comments, but the very first thing that must happen is for you to answer my question.

Thank you.

Dan Trabue said...

Okay, Bubba, so you won't answer the question. No problem, I'll give you a second question:

WHY are you all either unwilling or unable to answer the question? Is it a matter of pride? "Dan's asked me a question and I'll be danged if I'm gonna answer it! At least not directly!!"

Is it a matter of what they (at least they, if not you) really believe what they seem to be hinting at - that there really is a conspiracy amongst all the major "science" organizations to fool the world on climate change - and they know they will be mocked if they say that out loud with zero evidence to support such a crazy claim?

Or what? Why do you all refuse to answer what seems to be an easily answered question?

Now, I fully understand not all questions are directly answerable as they are framed. Craig recently mocked "the liberals" as being unable to give a tax rate that they think is right and fair for rich people. I could not answer, "THIS is the 'right' tax rate," because I don't believe there IS a "right" tax rate.

I could not give him a rate as he asked for, BUT I could and did answer his question directly: I do not believe there is such a thing as a morally and rationally "right" tax rate, at least at the upper end. I think obviously, it would be wrong to tax people so much that they can't afford to live so, for instance, at the lower end of the pay scale, a family with very meager income - say $10,000 - probably should not be taxed much or any because all their income is being used simply to survive.

But a "right" tax rate for a person making $400,000/year? $1 million? I do not believe that there exists a "right" rate, God has not told us and logic does not dictate to us one right rate, so I can't give what doesn't exist.

You see? I could not answer the question with the answer he wanted, but I could answer the question directly.

Why can't you answer the question, Bubba?

I'll allow that response, if you wish to participate in conversation. I'm very interested in that answer, too.

Dan Trabue said...

ON topic, Bubba said this...

I repeatedly explained why I refused to answer that question, from my first comment to my last comment, in the comments you've deleted AND in both comments you allowed to stand.

I'll reiterate:

I'm not answering your question because I see the sort of game you're playing, and I refuse to play along: you want conservatives to prove that they're either wild-eyed conspiracy mongers or the sort of "good" conservatives who would denounce the conspiracy theorists. You can ignore the former as lunatics who are as disreputable as Klansmen, and you can invoke the latter as a bludgeon to use against other conservatives.

Your own explanations for why you're asking this question have done nothing but confirm my suspicion.

"The purpose of the question is to identify if you are one of the crazies or a reasonable person."

[Why do you insist that I answer?] "Because if you are a conspiracist, then you're making irrational, impaired claims with no evidence and this is not the place to showcase mental illness."

Seriously: "prove you're not mentally ill" is hardly the best way to encourage people to answer your "easily answered" question.

I've already explained why I'm not answering your question: the real mystery is why you think I haven't even tried to do so.

OFF topic, he had much more to say. I'm asking him to stay on topic, so I've removed that part.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba, you actually seem to understand my point accurately, at least insofar as I'm trying to sort our rational commenters from the irrational ones. You seem to take offense at this.

Another question for you, then:

What is wrong with sorting out the irrational from the rational?

I answer crazy questions ALL THE TIME. ("I guess you LIKE seeing babies killed, then, huh?" and "So, you must support the president in EVERYTHING he does, right?") To do so is not demeaning, to me. In this case, it's not a crazy question (Do you believe in widespread conspiracies?), but the answers can be crazy.

Indeed, I addressed YOUR crazy accusation (which wasn't even a question, but I addressed it, to answer the false suggestion) about my belief in conspiracies (the "conspiracy" to have many world leaders trying to lie to justify an Iraqi Invasion).

You see, I WANT to make it clear what my position is and that it's not a crazy position.

Here, I'll do it again:

Conservative fella: "Dan, some Leftwingers believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bush, the CIA, the military and others conspired to deliberately crash those jets and cover up their involvement. Do you believe that??"

Dan: Um, no.

See? It's really quite easy, it's not demeaning and it clarifies my position and my place in the rational thinking world, not the conspiratorial world.

You can use that as a "bludgeon" against those on the Left who believe in conspiracies if you want. Why would I mind that?

What specifically is the problem with any of that?

Bubba said...

You provided an alternative question and insisted I answer it in order to participate in this discussion.

I did -- I pointed out that I had already done so, repeatedly -- and you still removed my comment to post just what you consider on-topic.

What you removed was my criticizing your wondering whether I wasn't answering your earlier question out of arrogance or fear -- the insinuation is insulting, in light of my willingness to entertain conveniently timed digressions and to stand by positions that you would dismiss as literally atrocious.

"Is it a matter of pride? [Do] they know they will be mocked if they say that out loud with zero evidence to support such a crazy claim?"

Why is it on-topic for you to ask these questions, but not for me to object to them?

Is that your idea of a respectful conversation between adults?

If so, I'll say it again:

Maybe you should consider the possibility that the problem isn't with the people you're interrogating: maybe it's you.

Dan Trabue said...

I asked you politely to stay on topic and you wandered off topic (again, the topic is NOT "Dan," but conspiracy theories). I removed that part that was not on topic but generously kept the on topic part (I could have deleted the whole thing, right?).

Do you think it's wrong for me to ask you politely to stay on topic?

I'll entertain an answer to that question.

Now, do you have an answer for my previous question, which you have ignored in your comment?

Dan Trabue said...

Why is it off topic to question my questions? Because it isn't an answer to my question, that's why. Because it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, that's why.

Now, do you have an answer to the question? Or will you insist on going down the off topic route?

Off topic comments will politely be deleted. There's no problem with you thinking or talking about these OTHER topics - feel free to do so on your own blog, on your own time - or email me if you'd like, but it's not the topic of this post.

Do you understand that?

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba, the topic is conspiracy theories.

Do you have anything to say about that?

Conversely, I politely asked you a question (is NASA, et all, part of a deliberate conspiracy to lie about climate change?), which you've chosen not to answer.

I then politely asked you another question (Why can't/won't you answer the question?), which you have chosen not to answer.

I'm not sure what is disrespectful or problematic about me asking you to stay on topic, but I'll entertain an answer to that question, as well.

All other commentary is off topic and, thus, not wanted. Thank you very much for staying on topic and/or answering questions I've asked.

Bubba said...

My asking you questions is apparently off-topic, but I must ask in order to determine the boundaries of this, the respectful adult conversation you're so eager to have -- and to determine your authority to dictate those boundaries.

1) What EXACTLY can I write that you would consider on-topic, besides direct answers to your questions?

2) What EXACTLY can you write that you would NOT consider on-topic, if the questions that you can ask can include insinuations about my character?

3) You have the power to delete comments on your own blog and override anyone else's conflicting claim that their comments are indeed germane, but what gives you the moral authority to determine unilaterally what comments qualify as on-topic?

It seems to me that you're exercising -- and abusing -- a power that would allow you to close off any real dissent to the assumptions underlying your positions and behavior.

Dan Trabue said...

Sorry, correction: I asked the question, Why not answer the question? and you DID answer. It's the follow up question that you didn't answer:

What's the problem with trying to separate out irrational answers from rational ones?

Here's a different angle on that question: IF I asked, "Do you believe that aliens are eating the GOP brains and replacing them with seeds and THAT explains why they act the way they do?" and some people answered seriously, "Yes, that IS probably it!," then is it safe to assume that they are not rational thinking people and that further discussions with them are probably not going to be fruitful?

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba...

1) What EXACTLY can I write that you would consider on-topic, besides direct answers to your questions?

You can write about the topic? In this case, "Conspiracy theorists tend to be irrational" is the topic.

Conversely, if I allow an off-topic question, then you can politely respond to questions that I've asked, off-topic - to accomodate YOUR off-topic question.

But you can't write endlessly or boundlessly about off-topic.

Why should I allow that? What is wrong with asking people to stay on topic and answer questions? (You can answer those questions, if you'd like).

Bubba..

2) What EXACTLY can you write that you would NOT consider on-topic, if the questions that you can ask can include insinuations about my character?

? If someone barges in here and makes OFF TOPIC commentary, and I entertain that off-topic commentary at least enough to address a question to that person, then that is my prerogative as the manager of this blog. What's the problem with that?

Bubba...

3) You have the power to delete comments on your own blog and override anyone else's conflicting claim that their comments are indeed germane, but what gives you the moral authority to determine unilaterally what comments qualify as on-topic?

My blog, I get to determine if something is on topic. YOUR comments did not address the topic "Vast conspiracy theorists tend to be irrational..." at all. Do you really think attacks on the blog host are somehow related to conspiracy theorists and their irrationality?

in one attack, you tried to tie ME to a conspiracy theory, and I allowed that off topic attack to remain long enough for me to point out that factually, that was not true. I commented OFF topic to your off-topic comment, in hopes that you might temper your comments with a bit more grace and humility, recognizing the error of your way.

Instead, you ignored that you made a false claim and proceeded with more false claims and off topic commentary.

My blog, I decided that I'm not in the mood for that sort of silliness as it seems to ME, the blog owner, that it is clearly off topic.

If you want to write about it in an email or on your own blog about how you think personal attacks off topic are somehow related to conspiracy theorists, feel free.

John B (SiftingReality.com) said...

It should be noted that I provided a link to a site which debunked the 97% figure by quoting interviews from some of the scientists saying the survey misrepresented their view. I also linked to a site that exposed 2/3 of 8000+ climate sutdies dont even mention a cause.

then dan admitted that he isnt a scientist and doesnt fully understand the issue. He then admitted that he doesnt read the other side on this issue because he thinks 'deniers' are crazy conspiracy theorists and thus doesnt have to read the other side just like you dont have to read the kkk's views on race.

Dan Trabue said...

John, your topic is off comment, since the POINT OF THIS POST is not whether or not 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change.

You have one chance, John. You can ignore questions all day at your blog if you want. Your blog, your rules. Here, you have one chance to answer the question directly:

Do you believe that NASA, the AMA, the AMS, etc are involved in a conspiracy to deliberately lie about climate change?

I'll also offer the same question as I did to Bubba:

Why can't/won't you answer the direct question?

Off topic comments or comments not addressing my questions will be deleted.

Thank you for respecting my rules.

Dan Trabue said...

Conversely, here is another question you can answer, if you want to post here:

DO YOU UNDERSTAND what the topic of this post is? If so, can you repeat it back to me in one sentence?

Bubba said...

Dan, consider me even more confused about the nebulous standards of the topic under discussion.

It seems to me that everything I wrote in my last comment was germane, and yet you still deleted it.

1. I agreed with you in telling John to stick with the topic.

2. I regurgitated your verbatim assertion about what the topic is, namely, is that "Conspiracy theorists tend to be irrational."

3. I summarized what that topic means in practice, detailing the numerous things you evidently CAN say on that topic and the numerous similar statements that we CANNOT make, since they're evidently off-topic.

4. I admitted my ignorance about how your nearly tautological topic could possibly permit you to write so many contentious things while simultaneously requiring us to do nothing but answer your questions, as if we were on trial.

5. Having said that, I told John not to ask you about the conundrum since the topic's boundaries are not the topic -- and since the only thing you'll clearly say about those boundaries is that you'll permit what's on-topic but not what's off-topic.

6. I then predicted -- quite accurately -- that you would probably delete my comment for daring to point all this out.

You did delete it, but it's not clear why. What did I say that was conceivably off-topic?

Is discussing the topic's boundaries in practice AS YOUR BEHAVIOR HAS MARKED OUT THAT TERRITORY somehow off-topic?

Or will you just simply admit what's obvious, that you're going to write what you like and delete what you don't like?

You're not concerned about keeping to germane commentary, and you're certainly not interested in a serious discussion. You want some sort of show trial, you have the power here to suppress inconvenient disagreement, and you have no problem with the capricious exercise of that power.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Dan, by running your blog according to clearly announced guidelines and rules you demonstrate your alliance with the grand conspirators. Your openness and transparency are a screen hiding the real secret. Like science and math and statistics (damn that Nate Silver and his magical numbers!) you dare to operate according to rules your opponents don't understand despite their clarity and public nature.

You are, therefore, part of that conspiracy.

As Art said in a previous thread, there may never be any evidence to prove that assertion, but that doesn't mean it isn't true and shouldn't be shouted from the highest rooftops as often as possible.

Happy Independence Day, all!

Marshall Art said...

Dear Geoffrey,

Do you think you could find it in your heart to refrain from quoting me incorrectly? I'd appreciate it. Dan would call it slanderous.

Yours truly,
Art

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I am still wondering why you are so fixated on this question of yours? This is due to the fact that I don't believe anyone at Barron's site was even suggesting a "conspiracy" which including any of those groups. Thus, the trepidation at answering seems justified. "What's he up to in asking this weird question?" It really seem moot. Does their not being part of a conspiracy become a defense for them for agreeing with the AGW position? I don't think so. They must still answer for their alignment with AGW proponents and do more than disparage those who disagree.

What's more, a conspiracy suggests some organized effort. I wouldn't say that lefty journalists necessarily conspire against right-wing positions, though some of them might, but they do all work toward the same end-game. Is that a conspiracy, or just a bunch of idiots who all deal with opposition in the same low class manner?

So why suggest a conspiracy and then demand that anyone should take a position?

Alan said...

Bubba's back. That didn't take long, I see.

Alas.

What did we do before that made him shut up and leave?

Dan Trabue said...

It's a question, Marshall. If you don't believe in a conspiracy, then all you have to do is say so.

Do you believe that NASA et al are deliberately lying to try to fool the world?

What is the problem with answering a question that seems obvious to you? I do it ALL the time when you all misinterpret me. The only difference is I tend to ask the question, giving you the benefit of the doubt whereas you all tend to just say, "Dan believes this crazy thing..." and I have to correct the misunderstanding. Over and over and over and over again.

What is the problem in saying "I don't believe that..." if you don't believe it?

Craig said...

Dan,

When you claim that NASA says 97% of "climatologists" believe in global warming, are all of these folks who are scientifically qualified to do anything more than render a personal opinion.

The reason I ask is that most of this list of people who question what happened to the WTC on 9/11 are people who would not seem to be qualified to render an informed opinion. For example, the opinion of a forensic structural engineer would carry much more weight than an electrical or mechanical engineer or an architect. By the same token, there may be numerous people who could be labeled "climatologists", who aren't qualified to give a scientific opinion, but are lumped in with this list of "climatologists" in order to demonstrate a consensus that appears more formidable than it actually is.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

For Art, here is the comment in full:

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM."

Not yet. There may never be. But again, you presume that all such concerns are loopy while maintaining you have perfect vision regarding your own accusations toward right-wing figures. As I said, subjectivity looms large in any "scandal".


The specific part I lifted was the whole "there may never be any evidence of wrongdoing" to which I added the logical statements beloved of conspiracy mongers everywhere: lack of evidence does not disprove a conspiracy which means the questions need to be raised again and again and again . . .

Look, the claims about "subjectivity" are ridiculous. A factual claim is made - whether it's about climate change or TWA 800 or the Kennedy assassination or what have you. That claim sets the stage for factual research: Is climate change occurring? Did TWA 800 get shot down by a missile? These questions are subject to testing by methods anyone can follow.

In the case of climate change, the model currently in use is actually too conservative as we have reached certain points - the reduction of Arctic Sea Ice for example - decades before the model said we would. All in all, the theory works well in the way all good scientific theories should.

There are always counterfactuals and data that do not fit a theory because no theory describes all of reality, or even all the reality it attempts to describe. That doesn't negate the force of the theory; rather it opens it up to more possibilities for refinement through research. I have written about this a time or three, you know.

In all scientific endeavors, the onus is upon the proponents of a given theory to make their case. Dan is doing that here by asking a simple, yes or no question: Do you believe that all the various scientists who have been doing work on aspects of climate change are lying? This work goes back decades, mind you. If your answer is "Yes", it is up to you to demonstrate who and in what ways. Questions of motive are beside the point here.

Just answer the question.

Marshall Art said...

"The specific part I lifted was the whole "there may never be any evidence of wrongdoing" to which I added the logical statements beloved of conspiracy mongers everywhere: lack of evidence does not disprove a conspiracy which means the questions need to be raised again and again and again . . ."

Geoffrey,

Your "adding" to my comment suggests I am a conspiracy theorist, which is far worse than merely misquoting me. You admit you are putting words in my mouth. What a schmuck!

I don't know where you pulled out the "subjectivity" bit, as I can only recall suggesting such in regards to the post about scandals.

"There are always counterfactuals and data that do not fit a theory because no theory describes all of reality, or even all the reality it attempts to describe. That doesn't negate the force of the theory;"

Actually, I think it must, especially if the volume of conflicting data is large enough to warrant it, which some anti-AGW people suggest. The trouble then comes when these "counterfactuals" are dismissed and how.

"Do you believe that all the various scientists who have been doing work on aspects of climate change are lying?"

This is not Dan's question, unless you are adding to his comments as well. His question, now updated, is "Do you believe that NASA et al are deliberately lying to try to fool the world?"

It's a question he brought up without any provocation on the part of others in the discussion to which this post refers. In other words, the closest to talk of conspiracies was the host of that blog referring to reports of collusion between certain pro-AGW researchers. DAN turned it into "widespread conspiracies". Go to the link and see for yourself. If it happened here, Dan would delete the question as "off topic" (though this specific post did not have a clearly distinct topic, but was a general "Global Warming" open thread).

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

My answer is "No". I do not believe that NASA and the other organizations are part of any orchestrated "conspiracy". I do not believe they are beyond suspicion for their stances. As I pointed out, your link referring to NASA's claim of 97% consensus only refers to another source that makes the claim. John pointed to sources that show why the claim is erroneous at best, if not completely deceitful. At a glance, it suggest manipulation ("Questions of motive are beside the point here."). The true percentage of scientists backing the position that AGW is man-caused is far less than 97% if all researchers of the issue are included. John's link showed they did not count those, for example, who gave no cause for the warming. What reason would you suggest explains why this "97% consensus" is repeated as fact?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art: "My answer is "No". I do not believe that NASA and the other organizations are part of any orchestrated "conspiracy". I do not believe they are beyond suspicion for their stances."

So which is it? Do you deny a conspiracy or, since you admit they "aren't above suspicion", is a conspiracy still possible?

Marshall Art said...

Once again, Geoffrey, it would seem to me that use of the term "conspiracy" suggests an actual joining of forces of all those on one side of the issue to push an agenda. But that several entities might side with pro-AGW positions does not mean this is the case. They could each have their own reasons for taking the position regardless of whether or not anyone agrees. They each are not required to act in concert with anyone to push their own personal agendas despite the goals aligning.

So, my comment regarding "suspicion" does not require a conspiracy between all those entities. Specifically, Dan only provided a link to NASA, but listed several entities as being in agreement with the 97% figure. I saw that the NASA site did not provide an explanation for why they cited the stat. No justification for it there. So it is logical to ask why they cited it in light of info John provided that explained how that stat came about. Perhaps the other entities Dan listed have a ready explanation. If Dan is cool with not looking at John's links or the sources on which his position relies, I don't think I need to go out of my way to research every little thing Dan says. At present, it is enough for me that the one link he did provide did little to provide the validation he thinks it should have.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First of all, just because a bunch of scientists accept a theory doesn't make it right. It's the theories success at (a) explaining a diverse range of phenomena in a way that not only makes sense, but integrates heretofore unexplained data in to this larger context; (b) offering predictions on how experiments/observations undertaken within the parameters of the theory will turn out. Theories stand or fall on their success or failure as science.

Which is why the current theory of global warming is accepted.

You, Art, are just yammering. I don't think you even know what you think, because I can't make heads or tails of it from your comment.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

When you claim that NASA says 97% of "climatologists" believe in global warming, are all of these folks who are scientifically qualified to do anything more than render a personal opinion.

Here's the NASA website in question. It says, and I quote, "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree," and gives its source, which NASA apparently finds to be a credible source.

You'd have to ask NASA what they meant by saying, and I quote...

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

I take it to mean that NASA believes that 97% of climate scientists believe that climate change is a reality and human activity likely is affecting it.

What do you think NASA means by that? Do you think they're deliberately lying on this point, in an effort to fool the world?

As noted, I'm not a scientist. I'm just passing on information from what seems to me to be a reliable source. Do you believe NASA is an unreliable source?

That's fine, if you do, just asking a reasonable question.

Do you think NASA is deliberately lying, along with all those other reputable organizations listed (AMS, AMA, etc), in an effort to fool the world for some nefarious ends, profit perhaps? If so, on what do you base that crazy-sounding conclusion?

Do you agree with me that believing that NASA, the AMA, the AMS, etc are all deliberately lying sounds crazy?

Marshall Art said...

Or Craig, do you believe that no one has suggested that those groups are lying, but Dan has once again posited a self-serving slander in order to disparage others?

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

"I don't think you even know what you think, because I can't make heads or tails of it from your comment."

There obviously is much that confuses you. Such as...

"Which is why the current theory of global warming is accepted."

It is only accepted by a segment of the scientific community. This is the issue. It is not the consensus Dan and you wish it to be. You cannot simply dismiss the opposing point of view and pretend that only those who accept AGW arguments are correct or acting on only the most noble motivations.

Alan said...

My initial response when seeing comments like MA's or others, comments which clearly show the commenter has no idea how science really gets done, is dispair for how bad of a job science educators in this country have done in teaching how science works.

Then I remember who the commenters are and realize that no teacher, no matter how talented, could have possibly fostered understanding.

Marshall Art said...

And Alan's comments clearly show how quickly he is willing to denigrate those with whom he disagrees rather than to truly deal with the issue at hand. This is typical of Geoffrey who has stated that he deletes comments from those who would put forth an argument that contradicts AGW doctrine.

This post was provoked by another that dealt with the very issue of how science works, and the feeling that the AGW proponents are not being true to how science works. And science does not "work" by simply dismissing that which does not agree with one's own position, no matter how much the Alans and Geoffreys of the world would prefer.

Parklife said...

omg.. this whole conversation is insane.

Craig said...

Dan,

You ask if I trust NASA, and the answer is no I don't blindly trust anything that comes out of NASA. This kind of blanket statement without some background strikes me as something that bears further scrutiny before I can make decisions about it's trustworthiness.

I guess the question is why do you place such blind trust in such a vague statement? Is it just because it came from NASA?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...



You ask if I trust NASA

No, I did not. "Trust" is a vague ideal and I said nothing about whether or not you trust NASA. Rather, I asked specifically, "Do you think NASA is deliberately lying in an effort to fool the world?"

THAT was the question.

Do I place "blind trust" in NASA? I hold no specific trust value with NASA, the AMA, the AMS, etc. That is, I neither trust nor distrust them. I certainly have never said I have blind trust in NASA.

On the other hand, if you ask if I'm actively suspicious of NASA, generally speaking, I'd say, no. I have no reason to be especially distrustful of these organizations. Do you?

While I may not agree with every mission and expenditure done by NASA (or the AMA, the AMC, etc), I am unaware of any reports that they've been caught cheating/lying/swindling as a whole or their whole organizations have some known history of deliberately lying, so I know of no reason to suspect that they might be lying (unless you're of the sort to think that the LACK of any evidence at all is EXACTLY the "proof" that they must be lying... but I'm not that sort). Again, do you?

Are you actively suspicious of all organizations, Craig, presuming that they are lying as a starting point and trusting them only when they've somehow proven that they aren't lying? I'm neither blindly trusting, nor actively suspicious. I judge based on their known experience and actions. And so, I am unaware of any reason to be especially distrustful of these groups. You?

Do you think these groups are deliberately lying, Craig?

Craig said...

Thanks so much Dan. I'm confused. If you don't trust that 97% figure, why do you put it out there?

Maybe we should go back to my original point. What do we know about the "97%" and their qualifications to speak authoritatively on this subject? What do we know about how many were surveyed? How were those surveyed picked? How do the survey takers decide who meets the criteria to be surveyed?

The bottom line is, I don't know enough to make any sort of determination about the validity of this 97% number.

You obviously find it persuasive, or you wouldn't have offered it as the centerpiece of your post. So, why do you find this statistic so persuasive? What is it about NASA that gives you such confidence?

As to you questions, (I know the rue and will promptly and to the best of my ability answer every and any questions you might ask), here goes.

As I indicated earlier, I don't know if NASA is deliberately lying. I'd need some more information to decide. Is it reasonable that when NASA makes a pronouncement like this that they might massage it to convey the message that might help them get increased funding? Sure it could. Do I believe that there are a significant number of people in NASA that may disagree with this position? Sure. Do I realize that NASA is an organization and as such really doesn't actually have an opinion? Yes.

I don't necessarily have reason to be especially distrustful of "these organizations". I do have a healthy skepticism of vague pronouncements of this nature. Especially from an organization that is or should be on the chopping block in terms of budget dollars. It is certainly unheard of for an organization to massage it's message to appeal to those who control it's funding.

I believe I've already addressed your redundant question about whether I think these organizations are lying.

As I have given you no reason to suggest that I am actively suspicious of all organizations, I see no reason to dignify your intentional misrepresentation of my position with any further response.

I've already given you the answer to your final question, and see no reason to do so again.

Dan Trabue said...

So, you have no reasons to be suspicious of these groups, you have zero evidence that they're lying BUT you don't have enough evidence to know they're not lying.

But you don't especially think they're lying?

Okay, fair enough.

For myself, since there is zero evidence that they are lying and I have no great reason to suspect they're lying, I don't suspect that they're lying.

Craig said...

Dan,

Thank you ever so much for either ignoring my point, or deciding that you are better able to speak for me than I am.

I'll make it really simple.

I don't especially trust polls and surveys.
I don't especially trust sources you provide.

Bubba said...

Craig provides a thoughtful response to Dan's questions and raises a few questions of his own. Dan doesn't even acknowledge those questions, much less does he attempt to answer a single one of them, because he's too busy putting the worst possible spin on Craig's position.

His behavior validates my original comment, long since deleted, that Dan's only interested in conservative comments insofar as they can be used to discredit conservatives.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba...

Craig provides a thoughtful response to Dan's questions and raises a few questions of his own.

The question was, "Do you think NASA is lying? If so, based on what evidence?"

Craig's rather vague response...

I don't especially trust polls and surveys.
I don't especially trust sources you provide.


Thus, Craig hints at - but doesn't outright say - that he distrusts NASA, the AMA, the AMS, etc, etc, at least on this point.

The follow up question remains unaddressed, at least directly. "What evidence is there that NASA et al are deliberately lying? (Or, if you don't think they're necessarily deliberately lying, but think they are generally untrustworthy, then on what evidential bases do you think they are untrustworthy?)

It appears Craig's "evidence" for "distrusting, but not knowing if they're lying" is, "They might be making up/twisting stuff so they can make money..."

But, based on that, then I guess Craig and those like him distrust any and all human institutions not based on any evidence, but on the hunch that they might be trying to make money.

Conversely, I find it rather believable when scientists across the spectrum and with no apparent agenda seem to consistently agree that there is evidence for climate change and that there is evidence to suggest that humans are likely impacting this. I see this posted at various legitimate institutions of science (those with no apparent agenda) and it sounds believable to me. I see NO EVIDENCE to doubt the report.

If there is no EVIDENCE to distrust a report and the report seems generally believable and has been peer-reviewed in a scholarly manner, then I usually tend to accept a widely reported fact.

Craig, you say you don't "especially" trust polls and surveys. Does that mean, across the board, you never trust surveys? Or that you trust surveys when they agree with your cultural or religious opinions, but not otherwise? Does the fact that the science of surveys (as opposed to more haphazard online polls or political "surveys" that are beginning with an agenda) has demonstrated a reliable track record, when done scientifically and rationally?

You seem to be talking about knee jerk distrust of organizations which offer a worldview different than yours, whereas I'm talking about going where the evidence leads. IF there is reason to distrust a report, then I should be able to point to the specific reason(s) and evidence. In those cases, by all means, by skeptical.

But if there is no evidential reason to distrust a report that appears solid and rational, on what basis would I disagree with the report?

If we want to look at the evidence, here is the report from Doran that NASA cites - a survey sent to 10,000 earth scientists and responded to by 3,146) - in which you can see the chart showing that climatologists in general appear to agree with the notion over 85% of the time, with those who've published PEER-reviewed papers and presumably spending the most effort on it believing it ~97%. You can read the actual survey results yourself, but here is Doran's conclusion...

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).

Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2 [regarding likely human impact on climate change -dt].


I'm just asking, on what rational, evidence-based reason would we distrust this scientific study and others like it?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

From Bubba: " . . . Dan's only interested in conservative comments insofar as they can be used to discredit conservatives."

Actually, most conservatives do that without anyone's help. Just quoting a conservative is enough to get them upset (see the ridiculous hyperbole about Media Matters for America, a website that does nothing more than quote conservative media).

And Dan "characterizes" Craig's response quite accurately. Saying "I don't know if X is lying and I need more information to decide" is basically accepting the false premise that they could be lying.

Which gets to Dan's second question: Why would they? I'm guessing because you talked about their budget, we're back to money again. I'm at a loss as to how you don't see how clearly ridiculous all of you sound.

Dan Trabue said...

Geoffrey makes good points. To that end, Craig said...

why do you find this statistic so persuasive? What is it about NASA that gives you such confidence?

1. Because it is based upon scientific polls with no detectable agenda or nefarious motivations other than getting at facts.

2. Because NASA, the AMA and the AMS are scientific organizations - not ones with an obvious political bias in evidence - with a long history and no known allegations of impropriety of which I'm aware.

3. Because these organizations are and have long been publicly scrutinized and their results studied by peers and are open to corrections and clarifications.

In short, these results seem trustworthy based on the evidence and I don't distrust groups with no evidence simply because I may agree or disagree with them. That is not rational. Indeed, it's symptomatic of groups and individuals that tend towards conspiracy theories.

I have no reason to default to wanting to believe in anthropogenic causes for climate change, other than the evidence. It's all about the evidence.

Is there any EVIDENCE-based reasons for either thinking NASA et al are all lying to fool the world for some unknown motive or that their results are generally not trustworthy?

Skepticism is a good thing when dealing with any claims, but it can be taken too far if you're skeptical NOT because of evidence, but simply because of a political agenda or for the sake of being skeptical alone.

Craig said...

"Skepticism is a good thing when dealing with any claims, but it can be taken too far if you're skeptical NOT because of evidence, but simply because of a political agenda or for the sake of being skeptical alone."

Then I guess it's a good thing that I'm not skeptical because of a political agenda or for the sake of being skeptical alone then.

At least one thing I said hasn't been misrepresented.

My problem with surveys or polls is a result of some time on the inside of the process of designing and taking polls, seeing how easy it is to manipulate the results.

Which position, thankfully, is a reasonable position arrived at through experience, rather than a knee jerk response.

I'm quite sure this will be misrepresented as well, but I'll give it one more shot.

Of course, my questions go unanswered.

Dan Trabue said...

So, you are skeptical of polls because YOU have been part of manipulative poll-taking. Does that mean you have evidence that ALL polls are manipulative and deliberately false and/or twisted?

If so, where is the evidence?

This is all about evidence, or lack thereof.

Do. You. Have. Evidence. Of. False. Information. From. NASA?

If you can't provide any, you can't really ask us to take your word alone. Healthy skepticism prevents such blind faith.

As to unanswered questions, I'm unsure what you think is unanswered, as I think I've addressed most if not all your questions. This one for instance...

When you claim that NASA says 97% of "climatologists" believe in global warming, are all of these folks who are scientifically qualified to do anything more than render a personal opinion.

I pointed out that at least one scientific survey source sent the survey to thousands of scientists and thousands responded. He noted specifically which portion of those were earth scientists and which had some level of Peer-Reviewed expertise specifically in climatology. So, that question has been answered.

You go on to say, on that point...

By the same token, there may be numerous people who could be labeled "climatologists", who aren't qualified to give a scientific opinion, but are lumped in with this list of "climatologists" in order to demonstrate a consensus that appears more formidable than it actually is.

The fella who did this survey discloses where he got his list of scientists, it all sounds legitimate to me. Do you have reason to suspect that he sent it to NON-scientists who were then called "climatologists..."? If so, where is the evidence?

Do you get that I'm asking you to produce evidence for your skepticism beyond, "I've taken part in shady surveys in the past, therefore, THESE surveys are also shady..."

You asked other questions along these lines...

What do we know about the "97%" and their qualifications to speak authoritatively on this subject? What do we know about how many were surveyed? How were those surveyed picked? How do the survey takers decide who meets the criteria to be surveyed?

All of which are addressed at the source I provided. Here, I'll even post it for you to see here...

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).


Do you have evidence to suspect that the source list was fallacious or misleading? If so, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Do you distrust the scientists at NOAA, the DOE, USGS and NASA? If so, where is the evidence for a reason to distrust them?

Where is the evidence for any of your "skepticism"? You know, when skepticism is not based on facts but on fear or personal opinions, it moves from "skepticism" into "paranoia...," right?

Alan said...

Can anyone provide addresses of the organizations shoveling out all the vast money and political power that to scientists doing research on the human effects on climate change?

Neither myself nor any of the scientists I know who do not work for private corporations know about these resources and we would like some time to feed at the trough.

Craig, counter to Bubba and MA, actually provides a useful question: Where does the 97% figure come from? Who was surveyed? What are their qualifications. Unfortunately, I suspect that even if we had answers to such questions they would mean nothing to this crowd.

Can anyone here (without googling) name the 5 top climatology graduate programs in the country?

What are the top 5 journals publishing this research? Who are the folks widely considered to be doing the best research in the field and why? Where were they trained?

What were the last 10 papers in this area that you read? Where were they published? Who wrote them? What were their conclusions?

See, the problem you all have is that you ask questions that, even if you had the answers, you wouldn't have the background and context to understand the answers if they were provided.

So, ultimately, Craig's skepticism isn't very helpful because even if the answers were provided, the answers wouldn't be useful.

Dan Trabue said...

Good point about the funding for climate change research. Is there really a huge source of income for people to do climate research which would ONLY pay if you agree with the apparent consensus? What is it? Where is the evidence?

On the other hand, we know that at least some of the funding for the climate change deniers (as opposed to pure skeptics) has reportedly come from the oil and gas industries, as well as conservative, corporate types like the Koch Brothers.

And this makes sense. We can see how potentially the coal, gas and corporations might be negatively impacted by policies that might arise from climate knowledge, so it would make fiscal sense for them to fund "skeptics" and deniers. But where is the rationale for funding scientists whose research leads them to support the AGW conclusion?

Evidence, we need, not innuendo.

Marshall Art said...

"But, based on that, then I guess Craig and those like him distrust any and all human institutions not based on any evidence, but on the hunch that they might be trying to make money."

Note the above quote and compare it to Dan last. He is quite ready to assume reports of such as that regarding the Koch Bros are worthy of negative speculation. For some reason, he assumes that just because the industries being blamed for global warming spend their own money to confirm or deny, then by golly they must have selfish motivations.

And again, I wonder why Dan asks the question in the first place. Does it necessarily follow that because one doubts the claims and conclusions of an outfit such as NASA, that one must necessarily believe they are intentionally lying as opposed to merely being wrong?

More later...

Dan Trabue said...

The evidence, Marshall, is a non-science business funding groups that "find" science that fits their needs. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's suspicious as hell, do you not think?

Put another way, don't you think it would be naive to find Group A, which depends upon Circumstance X - even though X is contrary to current scientific studies - to start funding a group that, lo and behold, determines that Circumstance X is TRUE, despite the predominant scientific thinking... and think that money had nothing to do with their conclusions?

On the other hand, where is the Koch Bros, the Exxon, the coal industry, etc, which is funding all these independent groups to find support for climate change? Where is anyone going to make money off of that?

Now, if you could draw a line between solar businesses (which might stand to profit from climate change support) and groups that "find" support for climate change, then you might have at least the beginnings of evidence.

But Marshall, the point is that funding from groups in which the results conveniently support the groups IS suspicious, at least, and we'd be naive to accept blindly any reports from such self-serving reports.

Do you truly doubt this?

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE to tie "science buying" with NASA, et al?

Alan said...

NASA: Evil group engaged in a massive multi-country global conspiracy to spread fraudulent pseudo-science.

Koch Brothers: God's angels here on Earth.

Yeah. Clearly these conspiracy theories aren't bat-shit crazy.

Craig said...

Dan
Your skills at misrepresenting others are truly awe inspiring. Although I guess you did grudgingly provide some background information. I guess there's no point in trying to correct you again.

Dan Trabue said...

I don't know what you're speaking of. All I know is I see that you are providing no evidence-based reasons for your skepticism - which makes it sound more like paranoia, rather than honest skepticism.

If at any time you'd like to provide some, you know, actual evidence, we could talk. But it sounds like you're bailing.

I hope you can see that it sounds like, when asked to produce evidence for your distrust/suspicions, you were unable to do so and, so, left - without bothering to be man enough to admit you have no evidence. I hope you'll forgive me for drawing that conclusion.

Craig said...

Dan

As long as you continue to misrepresent my comments and to respond to your misrepresentation rather than my comments it would be futile to continue. Calling me a coward doesn't seem either productive or particularly Christlike. So despite your winsome and grace filled repartee, I think it best to move on.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

As long as you continue to misrepresent my comments...

Craig...

calling me a coward...

Let the EVIDENCE show, I have not called you a coward. That would be a misrepresentation of my comments, as seen by the evidence here.

Rather, I have been quite clear that I'm looking for EVIDENCE to support your claims. If you have no EVIDENCE, then I am suggesting your conclusions are IRRATIONAL, not cowardly.

I DO think that it is rather un-adult to not admit that you can't demonstrate ANY evidence to support your doubts, but that is childish reasoning and, again, irrationality, not cowardice.

As to the continued UNSUBSTANTIATED claims that I have misrepresented you, those, too, go unsupported with any evidence.

If you have no evidence, you can't expect us to agree with your baseless claims and paranoid-sounding suspicions.

Craig said...

Dan

If you asked I'd forgive your continued misrepresentation of my comments. The fact that you are unaware of your behavior confirms my choice to try to disengage.

Dan Trabue said...

How does that make sense? If I've offended you and you think I've misrepresented you, how will I learn my mistake unless you point to it?

At that point, I could see, "Oh, I made a mistake, my bad." Or, given your history of misunderstanding MY points, I could correct your misunderstanding.

But not knowing where I've misrepresented you, what am I to do?

My guess is you're referring to something like where I ASKED...

So, you have no reasons to be suspicious of these groups, you have zero evidence that they're lying BUT you don't have enough evidence to know they're not lying.

But you don't especially think they're lying?


or where I ASKED...

So, you are skeptical of polls because YOU have been part of manipulative poll-taking. Does that mean you have evidence that ALL polls are manipulative and deliberately false and/or twisted?

But then, these are questions giving you a chance to clarify your positions, so that wouldn't reasonably be called a misrepresentation, would it?

How any of this meandering is on topic, I fail to see.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

Dan,

In the event you are actually willing to respond appropriately I'll provide you with one actual but of evidence to demonstrate your misrepresentation.

My words,

"My problem with surveys or polls is a result of some time on the inside of the process of designing and taking polls, seeing how easy it is to manipulate the results."


Your words, (and punctuation inside the quotes)

"So, you are skeptical of polls because YOU have been part of manipulative poll-taking."

Nowhere in my comment is any indication of my having taken part of manipulative poll taking, yet you choose to presume otherwise.

Later you say "or where I ASKED..."

"So, you are skeptical of polls because YOU have been part of manipulative poll-taking."

As anyone with a first grade reading level could easily see this is not a question. Yet you assert otherwise.

You original assertion is,

"But NASA, the AMA, the AMS and other very legitimate sources say that 97% of climatologists say climate change is real and likely due to human factors.".

but when pressed you provide this,

"...a survey sent to 10,000 earth scientists and responded to by 3,146)...".

So actually about 30% of the scientists surveyed didn't respond to the survey. Which calls into question the accuracy of your initial pronouncement.

Further we see this,

"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals in total)."

So, your great confidence in this 6 year old study is based on the fact that 79 out of 10,000 scientists who were sent the survey agreed to two questions. I can see where you get the 97% number.

Oh and if one looks in context, one would see that the original post which raised your ire was about the fact that the rise in temperatures has disappeared for the last 16 years or so. I'm a little mystified how a study published 6 years ago, based on research from even longer ago provides evidence that supports your original point.

So, feel free to portray my healthy skepticism as irrational or paranoid, or whatever. Basing your premise on a survey that occurred before what you are trying to refute, doesn't seem rational, does it?

Anonymous said...

Geoffrey said . . .

I cheated and googled. The top three clmatology graduate programs are UNC-Asheville, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Penn State.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

So, feel free to portray my healthy skepticism as irrational or paranoid, or whatever.

I'm just saying what I've been saying, if you have no evidence to support distrust, then you have no rational reason for a paranoid distrust of a group that manages to use "science" to send people to the moon and robots to Mars and has no record of using "science" to try to fool the world. And that paranoia makes people sound nutty.

That's all.

Craig said...

"I'm just saying what I've been saying,..."

I am quite aware of what you've been saying. Because once again you've misrepresented what I've said.

I quite clearly said "healthy skepticism" while you quite clearly morphed that into "distrust".

I pointed out one of your mis characterizations and instead of acknowledging your error you ignored it. I provided some quotes from the study you provided which call it's relevance into question, and you ignore that.

Yes, it's quite clear what you've been saying.

Oh, it's just not worth it.

Craig said...

Or instead of looking at what you are saying, how about we look at what is being said about your 6 year old "proof" of your thesis.



“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

"I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists)(or bloggers) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

“..and I do not think that a consensus has anything to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

Maybe, it's possible that your irrational support for the AGW agenda has caused you to cite an out of date survey which maybe isn't quite as scientific as you thought it was.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, a "healthy skepticism" means you say, "But where is the evidence? What does the evidence say?" If there is no evidence, say, for mistrust - zero evidence of attempt to lie to fool the world, zero evidence that they're promoting a scientific theory because they hope - somehow, we don't know how, but maybe somehow to make money... or something? off of it - if there is no evidence for mistrust, then continued skepticism is not skepticism, anymore.

So, are you a skeptic, looking for evidence, or are you paranoid?

If you have no evidence, you sound more paranoid.

Like, for instance, claiming I have "support for the 'AGW agenda'" - or that such a thing as an AGW agenda exists! - when there is no evidence for such a thing, you sound more like one of the conspiracy theorists that this post is about.

Where is your evidence in an AGW agenda? Or that I support this secretive and global AGW agenda?

Zero evidence = paranoid conspiracy theorist.

As to your various quotes, how does any of that prove a deliberate attempt to mislead the world? How is that evidence that the survey was not a scientific one, but rather, one with an agenda?

ZERO evidence = paranoid conspiracy theorist.

That's what I'm saying.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I pointed out one of your mis characterizations and instead of acknowledging your error you ignored it

Craig, I don't know how to tell this in a way that you can hear it, but anything you've offered as a mischaracterization thus far has been a misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of my actual beliefs and comments. That is, because I say "Evidence" and you THINK I said "Applesauce Moustache" is not evidence that I said "applesauce moustache."

Craig said...

Dan,

As evidence of my healthy skepticism, I refer you to my first comment on this thread. In that comment I asked for evidence and for the qualifications of those surveyed. Once you provided the out of date survey, I was able to do some research and as I have pointed out your confidence is not supported by the facts of the survey you provided.

As for the misrepresenting, I have given you two specific examples of this. The fact that you choose to pretend like they don not exist, given me serious concerns about your rationality. Given your past behavior, I suspect that you will continue to ignore the specifics until enough comments have accumulated for you to credibly claim it's just too much to go back and find them.

You ask for specifics, I give them. You ignore them. I quote your own actual words (copy pasted from your own actual comments) and you claim that you were misunderstood. So, onece more.

"So, you are skeptical of polls because YOU have been part of manipulative poll-taking."

Your words, quoted exactly from your comment on July 9th at 11:16 AM. Unless you can provide actual evidence of me claiming that I have been part of taking a manipulative poll, your own words should suffice. Evidence.

Is it really that hard to admit you've made a mistake?

"1. Because it is based upon scientific polls with no detectable agenda or nefarious motivations other than getting at facts."

As long as you ignore or explain the evidence to the contrary. I'm guessing it's kind of hard to ignore the comments of one of the researchers who disagrees with you on this point.

Sorry Dan, you put too much faith in and old study, whose results have been twisted to make for a good (albeit inaccurate) sound bite. Now it's somehow more satisfying for you to ignore and misrepresent than to deal with the fact that your original premise is not supported by the evidence.

For the record.

Dan's original premise.

"I take it to mean that NASA believes that 97% of climate scientists believe that climate change is a reality and human activity likely is affecting it."

But this runs afoul of simple math. Using the report Dan provided we see that 10,000 scientists were sent a survey. Out of those 10,257, it seems that 3,146 actually were impressed enough to respond, then the data get's sifted down to 79 climatologists out of the 10k asked to respond and the 31k who actually did respond get's you to 97% blah, blah, blah.

Oh and did I mention that the study reflects things as they were 6-8 years ago.

To summarize. Old study, Bad reporting, Dan gets sucked in.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, as to the misrepresentation, HERE is what I said, in context...

So, you are skeptical of polls because YOU have been part of manipulative poll-taking. Does that mean you have evidence that ALL polls are manipulative and deliberately false and/or twisted?

Perhaps it would have been more clear if I had put a question mark in the first sentence. For that mistake, I apologize. But, I thought it was clear that I was repeating back what you were saying to clarify my understanding.

"Sooo... you took part in a manipulative poll...? Does that mean that you think all polls are thus, manipulative...??"

Does that help clear up the confusion?

Regardless, you seem to be hanging up on the point of "you took part in a manipulative poll..." and I assume your disgruntlement is in the suggestion that you took part in manipulating people? (Notice the question mark there, that is a question, not an accusation, fyi). If so, again, you missed my point (and not the "if so, that implies a question, fyi). My point was not that you were actively manipulating people in a poll, but that you were familiar in some manner with some manipulation or potential manipulation of polls. The POINT was, "SO, do you think then that ALL polls are manipulative?" and with that comes the follow up question, "WHERE. IS. THE. EVIDENCE?"

That is what I keep asking and not getting.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Using the report Dan provided we see that 10,000 scientists were sent a survey. Out of those 10,257, it seems that 3,146 actually were impressed enough to respond, then the data get's sifted down to 79 climatologists out of the 10k asked to respond and the 31k who actually did respond get's you to 97% blah, blah, blah.

Craig, I know I don't have the years (months? weeks? days?) of experience and know-how that you do in the pollery game, but (and correct me if I'm mistaken) the purpose of polls is NOT to ask all 100,000 in a group of 100,000 and get 100,000 responses so you can accurately say "97% think this..." Rather, the purpose is to get a representative sampling - usually MUCH smaller than the whole - to get a reliable estimate as to the beliefs of the whole, is that not correct?

If so, do you have any evidential reason to distrust this sampling or is it mere paranoia against several groups of reputable scientific agencies with ZERO records of lying to the whole world in an attempt to fool the world into believing something is true?

Where is the evidence for the distrust?

Marshall Art said...

The distrust is in the people who use this poll as evidence that a true consensus exists and therefore we can assume those who disagree are less than credible, which is the implication. In other words, it is one thing to make a claim regarding consensus. But then to find that "consensus" is comprised of a tiny amount of people who actually responded suggests that, not only is there no consensus to begin with, but that those who use the 97% figure aren't concerned with reality as much as what a figure like that can do for their side of the argument and the policy proposals they have in mind.

But before you go on with more "conspiracy" crap, consider that I don't need to go that route in the first place to explain why trust in ANY group who uses this 97% figure is compromised. I'm more concerned with why they are using such a figure at all when it isn't a true reflection of reality. Instead, it seems to be used as a tool to silence contrary opinion on the cause of whatever warming might be taking place. "97% agree it's man-caused!" Clearly that isn't true, so clearly the pro-AGW side isn't concerned with truthful debate. I would think honest people would use it in a manner similar to the following:

Where those who have chosen to respond to the question of why is there warming, X% say it is caused by human activity.

Instead, what they DO say suggests that of ALL the people who are knowledgeable on the subject, 97% insist warming is caused by human activity. Why would anyone trust the groups who use this figure?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

But then to find that "consensus" is comprised of a tiny amount of people who actually responded suggests that, not only is there no consensus to begin with

You all DO understand, don't you, that a scientific poll does NOT ask EVERYONE in a group what they think, right? That specifically IS NOT a poll, but rather a question that literally EVERYONE has answered.

That isn't how polls work, you understand this, right?

Craig said...

Thanks for the non apology, apology.

What you clearly wrote, may not be what you intended to say. That, however, is not my fault.

Further, even if I grant that this was a "mistake", the fact remains that your "question" clearly implies that you chose to imply that I had taken part in a manipulative poll.

To the contrary, my experience is that it is exceedingly difficult to write and administer a poll without manipulating the results (either intentionally or otherwise). Given that, yeah, I tend to have healthy skepticism towards survey. If you want to blindly accept them, don;t let me stop you. Just don't expect me to share your naivete.

"SO, do you think then that ALL polls are manipulative?"

Once again, I'll answer. I think all polls and surveys have the potential to be manipulated. Therefore, I take them with a grain of salt, rather than to view them as any sort of "proof" or "evidence" in a scientific or legal sense.

Yes Dan, I understand how polls work. This may shock you, but when they send surveys to 10,000 "scientists", the more responses they get the better the sampling. So, yeah, the fact that about 70% of those surveyed chose not to participate is a bit of a red flag to me.

Again, your problem is that you've chosen to stake your entire position on an out of date survey, with significant problems of methodology. You offered this study as proof, and your proof is not as proofy as you thought it was.

That's your problem, not mine.

Craig said...

"Where is the evidence for the distrust?"

Between the poor methodology revealed in quote you provided, plus a quick google search (some quotes from which I provided for you), it is perfectly reasonable not to blindly trust this survey.

Craig said...

"But, I thought it was clear that I was repeating back what you were saying to clarify my understanding."

So do you seriously expect anyone to believe that when I said this:

"My problem with surveys or polls is a result of some time on the inside of the process of designing and taking polls, seeing how easy it is to manipulate the results."


You somehow took those words to mean this;

"So, you are skeptical of polls because YOU have been part of manipulative poll-taking."

I know you aren't stupid, but seriously. Your twist isn't even close to what I said.

I'm done with this. It is quite clearly pointless to continue.

Marshall Art said...

"You all DO understand, don't you, that a scientific poll does NOT ask EVERYONE in a group what they think, right?"

If they send the survey to everyone in a group, I would expect that there is indeed an expectation, or at least a hope, that all will respond. So, as Craig suggests, if about 70% of those surveyed chose not to participate is a bit of a red flag to me, too. Obviously with such a low rate of response, to suggest a consensus is not exactly honest.

Craig said...

MA,

It seems that one could reasonably conclude that the @7,000 refusals to respond actually were an answer to they survey.

No.

Dan Trabue said...

Again, you all appear not to understand the concept of how scientific surveys work.

Dan Trabue said...

Questionnaire: Asking EVERYONE in the room to fill out answers to questions.

Survey: Taking a random SAMPLING - specifically NOT "everyone" - of a group to gauge the thinking of the group, BASED ON the small sampling.

Alan said...

30-40% response rate on a survey is not, actually, a bad response rate. And no, one cannot assume that no response is a "no" response. I get survey requests almost daily and refuse most of them because I simply don't have the time to deal with them.

If you all were taking my survey methods course, I'd flunk you just for suggesting something so inane.

I'd buy Craig's skepticism if it were backed up by any real information. (As I said before, even if he had answers to his questions, he wouldn't understand them.) As a scientist and a skeptic myself, I think skepticism has a long and important history in the development of science. But there is a difference between skepticism and simple, knee-jerk uninformed gainsaying and making the ridiculous assumption that 70% of non-respondants actually responded "no" on a survey is the latter.

Parklife said...

For a topic that has long since been decided by rational people, this sure it getting lots of attention.

Craig said...

Dan,

Most people would have stopped digging by now. I could explain, but why bother.

Bubba said...

Dan,

For what it's worth, Marshall has allowed me a guest post at his blog to ask a follow-up question regarding the digression on taxes.

I'd appreciate your input.

Marshall Art said...

Don't know as I saw anyone suggest that not answering equals a "no" to any survey question. The point here, which needs to be explained, apparently, to scientists and skeptics alike, is that when an entire group is offered a survey, but less than half respond, pretending a consensus exists due to the answers of the few respondents is less than honest or realistic.

Anyone who teaches a survey methods course in this way doesn't deserve to call himself a teacher.

Even if one wants to highlight those who respond, one can only say "of those who responded, 97% said 'X'". To dare suggest a consensus is to willfully lie.

Dan Trabue said...

The concept can be explained TO you, but we can not understand it FOR you.

Alan said...

Craig: "It seems that one could reasonably conclude that the @7,000 refusals to respond actually were an answer to they survey.

No."

MA: "Don't know as I saw anyone suggest that not answering equals a "no"..."

Um....

Marshall Art said...

"Um...." indeed. Again, as if on cue and to be consistent in his inability, Alan seeks to condescend. Craig's comment does NOT indicate what that answer is, but only that a refusal to respond is an answer. It could just as easily be an arrogant Alan-like answer indicating, "of course we agree global warming is man-made". The only answer one could infer is that one refuses to respond to the survey.

Marshall Art said...

"The concept can be explained TO you, but we can not understand it FOR you."

Nice dodge, Dan. But a more honest way of putting it would be,

Dan can explain how he wants us to understand it, but he can't make us understand what isn't the case.

Alan said...

That's not what Craig wrote.

Marshall Art said...

Alan,

I missed the "no". I'll concede the point. And if Craig confirms your meaning is correct as well, consider my concession more firm.

If this is the case, then I would disagree with him to the extent that not answering does not guarantee a "no" answer by the non-response. The larger point, however, stands. No consensus can be assumed with so many not responding, and other responses disregarded simply because they didn't give an opinion on a definitive cause of the warming. The point, then, is that "97%" agree that global warming is caused by man is dishonest.

Craig said...

Alan and MA,

My comment was meant to indicate that those who did not respond to the survey, did respond. Their response was no. It probably should have been "no, I'm not interested in your survey" or something similar. Rather than the blanket "no" which could be interpreted the way Alan did.

Sorry for my lack of clarity.

It does seem like finding out why so many failed to respond would be interesting information to have.

Alan said...

"No consensus can be assumed..."

Based on?

I don't think you understand the nature of statistics and the relationship between a sample and the population. One does not have to sample an entire population to get a reliable reading. That's the whole point of the field of statistics. You're simply stating that a refusal to respond is a response, but saying it in a different way.

Now, if you have a statistical model that clearly shows why their sampling is not indicative of the population of scientists as a whole, I'm sure we'd all love to see it. Please direct us to your data which confirms your hypothesis.

Marshall Art said...

Based on so many articles that discuss how that "97%" number came about. Of all those from which I could have chosen, I liked this one. Point #13 at the end gets specifically to the "97%" deal, with a link to a guy who explains it with a bit more detail.

I don't think the word "consensus" can be used at all, based on its definition and the reality of how many put all their chips in the AGW pot.

In fact, the word seems entirely inappropriate. As such, one is not irrational to wonder just why NASA would bother to cite the number at all. At best, it's lazy.

Alan said...

So you believe a guy who writes a blog. On the internet.

But surveys are suspect.

Gotcha.

Marshall Art said...

Oh yeah, Alan. I forgot. There are no bloggers who aren't complete idiots lacking in knowledge of any kind on any subject, none of whom link to knowledgeable sources that provide actual information. Gotcha.

Why not address the analysis of the survey instead of the usual cowardly attack on the analyst?

Alan said...

"Why not address the analysis of the survey instead of the usual cowardly attack on the analyst?"

Oh, the irony.

Marshall Art said...

Alan thinks something's ironic. Wow.