{edited 2/10/2014 mornging}
I'm constantly reminded that science sceptics say the darndest things. But there's so much of it. There's no keeping up. However some remarks do deserve a closer look. For instance...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G says: Oh please do discuss the differences between the so-called “earth sciences” and the hard sciences. I’d love to know why you feel that the earth sciences should be held to a much lower standard in their data handling. Especially since you stated that expecting honesty, accuracy and transparency in the handling of data is somehow “dishonest”.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To begin with, in a constructive dialogue, it's important to understand what each person is saying. If one misunderstands the other, we should try clarifying what we mean and the other should try to listen to that clarification.
For instance, G claims: "since you stated that expecting honesty, accuracy and transparency in the handling of data is somehow “dishonest”."
Oh no! I never said there was anything wrong with expecting "honesty, accuracy and transparency."
It's the scientist's creed.
The thing you miss Mr G is that I believe ALL sides should respect that a creed.
In this dialogue you folks have shown zero interest in those standards of behaving "honest, accurate or transparent" regarding the articles and tactics youz guyz use to mislead and suppress discussing the real issues. Check out my recent "dialogue" with ScottishSceptic for an example of what I'm writing about.
As for "dishonest" you joker...
... it is dishonest to misrepresent what scientists have said or written -
... it is dishonest to attack the individual conveyers of information in order to ignore the valid information and messages they are trying to convey.
... it is dishonest to ignore the fine print on scientific graphs/studies, because that's where the accuracy of said study is discussed in detail.
... It is dishonest to expect perfect accuracy - particularly when said studies/papers already explained the reasons for achieving whatever accuracy level it achieved...
... It is dishonest to ignore the fact that scientists include suggestions for refining future observations because they are dedicated to achieving the highest attainable accuracies. {It's the human process of discovery, learning and mastery. Nothing about it is perfect - so pretending it's supposed to be - is a supreme and most contemptible dishonesty.}
... It is dishonest to imply that Climatologists need to explain every little "natural variation" before we can trust them to understand the important situation.
... It is dishonest to claim that "natural variation" somehow nullifies humanity's injects of gigatons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere every month.
... It is dishonest to ignore that by increasing our planet's greenhouse gas insulation medium we will energize natural variability to levels never experienced by humanity.
... It is dishonest to be smug and unconcerned about situations such as the California drought, or the recent UK west coast catastrophe {or the many others these past few years} because somewhere in dim time, there were also extreme weather events.
... It is dishonest not to learn the lessons from past climate fluctuations and the lesson that we have a global heat distribution engine that needs to be handled with care.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
G asks: "I’d love to know why you feel that the earth sciences should be held to a much lower standard in their data handling."
Think about this rhetorical sleight of hand.
It's like this fella never worked in the real outside world. It's one thing to do a lab experiment where everything can be controlled. Or to build a bridge/building where all components are finite and well understood. But when dealing with the actual geophysical planet out there, come on, give us a break.
No comments:
Post a Comment