• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Misogyny in Climate Science

They certainly can “count” as an ad hominem if they are cravenly used to attack his research whilst being completely irrelevant to it. Meh, typical Jack. Science denial and rank dishonesty have few limits.

Also, the idea that he was harsh toward one female and nice to one guy does not make him a misogynist. Your whole argument is ****ing pathetic.

Yup. There is no issue that Jack will not attempt to twist to his own ends.
 
They certainly can “count” as an ad hominem if they are cravenly used to attack his research whilst being completely irrelevant to it. Meh, typical Jack. Science denial and rank dishonesty have few limits.

Also, the idea that he was harsh toward one female and nice to one guy does not make him a misogynist. Your whole argument is ****ing pathetic.

Richard Tol has done the best analysis of the matter, IMHO.


Putting lipstick on Lewandowsky’s pig, er, polar bear

Guest essay by Dr. Richard Tol In their eagerness to discredit a colleague[1] Harvey et al. (2017) got ahead of themselves. The write-up shows signs of haste – typographical errors (“principle component analysis”, “refereces cited”) and nonsensical statements (“95% normal probability”) escaped the attention of the 14 authors, 3 referees and editor – but so does…
Continue reading →

. . . In sum, Harvey et al. (2017) play a statistical game of smoke and mirrors. They validate their data, collected by an unclear process, by comparing it to data of unknown provenance. They artificially inflate the dimensionality of their data only to reduce that dimensionality using a principal component analysis. They pretend their results are two dimensional where there is only one dimension. They suggest that there are many nuanced positions where there are only a few stark ones – at least, in their data. On a topic as complex as this, there are of course many nuanced positions; the jitter applied conceals the poor quality of Harvey’s data. They show that these is disagreement on the vulnerability of polar bears to climate change, but offer no new evidence who is right or wrong – apart from a fallacious argument from authority, with a “majority view” taken from an unrepresentative sample. Once the substandard statistical application to poor data is removed, what remains is a not-so-veiled attempt at a colleague’s reputation.
 
Climate Scientists Keep Making Bad Predictions
Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

[FONT=&quot]. . . And here's a related question: Have you heard much lately about how the polar bears are about to go extinct due to global warming? No? Better check up on that prediction and how it has turned out.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Susan Crockford is a scientist specializing in polar bears, who writes scholarly articles on the subject, and also has a blog called Polar Bear Science. She has been making a thing lately about taunting the alarm community for their failed polar bear predictions. For example, Crockford points to this report in Canada's National Post in May 2007 of a presentation by Al Gore:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][Gore pointed to] an iconic photograph that was distributed worldwide last month by Canada's Environment Ministry, . . . The photo, taken in the summer, shows two polar bears on a melting ice floe in the Beaufort Sea, north of Barrow, Alaska. "Their habitat is melting -- beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet," Mr. Gore said, with the photo on the screen behind him. "They're in trouble, got nowhere else to go." Audience members let out gasps of sympathy . . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Crockford also points to scholarly articles, particularly by a guy named Steven Amstrup, predicting rapid decline of polar bear populations if sea ice levels reach . . . levels that they actually did reach in years including 2012. But unfortunately, from Crockford's blog on December 21:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is the truth the world needs to hear: the experts were wrong. Polar bears have not been driven to the brink of extinction by climate change, they are thriving. This is the message of each of my two new books.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] And from Crockford's blog on January 4:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 17,300 polar bears would be dead by now (given sea ice conditions since 2007) have realized their failure has not only kicked their own credibility to the curb, it has taken with it the reputations of their climate change colleagues. This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place. . . .[/FONT]
 
[h=1]Comment on Harvey et al submitted[/h]Posted on 26 Jan 18 by PAUL MATTHEWS 13 Comments
We’ve already written several Cliscep blogposts on the nasty error-filled smear paper by Harvey et al, attacking Susan Crockford. The paper should have been retracted immediately, since it violates the OUP ethics policy, but neither the journal editors nor OUP seem to have any regard for ethics, so this didn’t happen, despite Crockford’s detailed letter. Now, Anand … Continue readi
 
Back
Top Bottom