- Local time
- Today, 17:39
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,511
Frothingslosh said:Then why do you disregard any and all experimental evidence and observational results that don't meet your preconceived notions?
I am a SKEPTIC, not an outright denier. "Preconceived notions" come in multiple flavors.
I have this preconceived notion that when the standard error of the estimate (a statistical function) is very large and the magnitude of the thing being estimated is much smaller, you have bad data and are potentially stretching the statistics in a way that they should not be stretched. Stated another way, when you are making trend-line predictions based on correlation coefficients that aren't above 0.67, the probability that your estimate is right works out to less than 50%. One of the things I had to learn when I earned my degrees was the statistics that we had to use so often. One of the things my major graduate advisor was big on was determining that the statistics didn't undercut the findings. That's how peer-reviewed papers get laughed into oblivion.
I have this preconceived notion that deconvoluting multiple simultaneous trends to isolate a single factor that is not the largest contributor to the effect under study makes for questionable findings. Particularly when other factors have wide variability as well, and the models in question do NOT make it clear how those multiple effects combine. Among other things, when you have a multiplicity of factors, you have to ask whether you are using a good model and what happens if another factor is discovered.
I have this preconceived notion that when lots of money is out there to be made, even the ivory-tower scientists develop this "survival" streak and publish papers favorable to the goals of those who make that money available. Sadly, "publish or perish" exists as a factor, and this global climate issue is a hot-button topic that allows researchers to make money, get grants, and meet publishing goals for their institutions. Which means that they can - and unfortunately sometimes do - omit some factors from their computations. I.e. incomplete research. The contradictory findings and multiple articles that don't always include the same factors make me pause. I.e. skepticism.
I actually DO NOT have a preconceived bias regarding whether global climate change is man-made or natural. BUT the Null Hypothesis says that when a claim is made (in this case, the man-made climate effects claim), logic and the scientific method demand skepticism until a certain level of proof can be provided. At the moment, I remain in the skeptical category, looking for other types of evidence than what has been published.
Am I saying that this effect CANNOT be man-made? NO. Am I saying that it is soundly proved to be correct? NO. The word "skeptic" (at least in this context) means I don't see enough compelling evidence for the specific question at hand.
I normally don't do this because I'm thick-skinned, but Frothy, ...
Frothingslosh said:It baffles me that you were able to earn a doctorate with that kind of behavior.
That is an argumentum ad hominem attack that is unworthy of you. I leave it to your imagination as to whether it is possible that I might have a mean-spirited rejoinder available regarding my level of education and experience vs. others. But I try to keep it civil, so will avoid the name-calling. But I'll also point out that attempting a "shame" attack on someone usually means you have realized that all your other arguments are too weak to be useful.