Re: OT: Next decade 'may see no warming'

On 8 jun, 04:47, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 8 jun, 01:49, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"J.A. Legris" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

p.s. interesting comment there about "natural climate cycles" ! Isn't that
what us 'deniers' have been talking about all along?

No, not at all. Idiots like you start with an immutable conclusion and
then go looking for snippets of "supporting" evidence.

You've got me confused with the AGWists. That's what THEY do.

No. that's what you think they do.

It IS what they do.

Mann's hockey stick is the perfect example. No further proof is required.

Your imperfect understanding of the controversy about Mann's hockey
stick is a perfect example of your habit of  starting with an
immutable conclusion and then misinterpreting  the evidence to fit
your conclusion.

Mann got into trouble about the statisitcal techniques he used to
average noisy temperature data to create a graph that illustrated the
recent rise in global temperature. The rise is real enough, and not
controversial, but the graph illustrated the point more clearly than
it should have done.

It was an outright FRAUD.

An intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part
with something of value or to surrender a legal right?

Mann was using a scheme of short term averaging that he thought was
appropriate; expert statisticians corrected his misapprehension, so he
was mistakenly made hs data look better than he should have done.

This was an unintentional error, so you can't legitimately accuse him
of fraud. The point that he was trying to get across isn't
controversial - the global temperature went up unusually quickly in
the last decades of the twentieth century - so he can't even be said
to have perverted the truth.

This could make your claim of fraud itself fraudulent - you are
perverting the truth to induce your audience to part with something of
value (their faith in the integrity of the IPCC), which would be fraud
if it could established that you were intentionally perverting the
truth, but since you are depressingly ignorant about the whole climate
change question, and prone to elementary faults in logic, you are
probably no more guilty of fraud than Mann is.

There is one difference - nobody would have been worse off if they had
taken Mann's graphs at face value, whereas your enthusiastically
propagated misapprehensions could slow down popular acceptance of the
need to do something about rising CO2 levels, if anybody took them
seriously. Happily, your credibility is now negative (check out
Parkinson's "the man who is always wrong"), so your virulent anti-
global-warming propaganda could be expected to persuade your readers
that anthropogenic global warming is real, though this would be a
strictly marginal effect.

Nobody is going to take you seriously enough to say "That idiot Eeyore
doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming, so it must be real".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ID thieves swapping names for surgery
    ... Ace) promised to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the ... commercial insurance, as well. ... version of Medicaid), they treat their insurance cards like they're credit ... fraud is so easy to commit, but only because there aren't nearly as many people ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... math .. ... I told you the truth. ... You're nothing but an ignorant arrogant liar and fraud, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT. : Climate change
    ... I see that my old friend "Will Sill" has opined on the veracity ... promulgated as truth, without recourse. ... Fraud; they apply universally. ... Facts are facts. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Scientific fraud
    ... some of his past publications are extremely suspicious on falsification. ... To go out with this finding is extreme risk: to know truth and to prove it are different stories. ... Because the accusation of fraud can be nearly as damaging as actual fraud, you would do well to make sure you are not in error as well. ...
    (sci.physics)