Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Commenter Takes his Ball (Deletes his Comments) and Goes Home

I went over an old Disqus thread at this post for the NCSE's blog. It was a new blogger named Kate Heffernan introducing herself. She is interested in climate and referred to 97% consensus papers. So I fired off a comment:
"It astonished me that people were allowing ideology to cloud their judgment on anthropogenic climate change, choosing to disregard the 97% of peer-reviewed scientific articles on the causes of global warming that support the theory, instead favoring positions on climate change that suit their worldviews."
Some skeptics of climate catastrphe may be allowing their idiology to cloud their judgement. But is your side doing the same thing? Those 97% studies have been found to be of very poor quality. Check out what Jose Duarte and Tom Fuller have to say:
"Ignore them completely – that's your safest bet right now. Most of these studies use political activists as the raters, activists who desired a specific outcome for the studies (to report the highest consensus figure possible), and who sometimes collaborated with each other in their rating decisions. All of this makes these studies completely invalid and untrustworthy (and by customary scientific standards, completely unpublishable.) I had no idea this was happening. This is garbage, and a crisis. It needs to stop, and those papers need to be retracted immediately, especially Cook, et al (2013), as we now have evidence of explicit bias and corruption on the part of the raters. (If that evidence emerged during the actual coding period, it would be fraud.)"
"More or less replicating the von Storch findings, Verheggen’s study found that 66% of the respondents felt that more than half of the global warming since the middle of the 20th Century was anthropogenic in origin. Those who felt that way were far more confident in their perception than those who felt that humans had been responsible less than 50% of the current warming period. This is a solid consensus about recent climate change.
Again, the survey has not been frequently cited by Alarmists—66% just isn’t sexy enough. So Alarmists went to work to create a false picture of a consensus that would satisfy their needs. Cue John Cook, Jim Prall and Stefan Lewandowsky…"
A commenter calling himself Ted Francis responded by criticizing Jose Duarte and Tom Fuller.Tom Fuller showed up (as he is prone to do when I quote and link to his posts) and had a long exchange with Francis. I thought Fuller got the better of it. But now when I go back to look it over, I see that all of Francis's comments have been deleted and comments are closed. I don't know if Francis or someone at NCSE deleted them. On second thought, let me Google Disqus and Ted Francis. The first entry shows up:
Ted Francis · Profile · Disqus
Alright Tom, we will see, I have forwarded your claims about the 66% straight to the source Bart Verheggen. I will see what he has to say before I make any more ...
When I click on it, the page does not exist. I wonder if he deleted his profile to hide his poor performance in this conversation? He certainly obscured the conversation, although not completely. One thing that irritated me was that he made a comment about how he would like to see Peter Hadfield aka potholer54 do a video on Jose Duarte and Tom Fuller. I responded with this comment:
I'd like to see it too, but I don't think he has anything just like he didn't have anything to say about nuclear fission in this video:
Anyone reading this thread won't know what I'm referring to. Did poor little Teddy take his ball and go home?






No comments:

Post a Comment