tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post6795938524651377475..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: On Manufacturing Doubt for Levitus 2012David Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-62404782172214079392012-04-26T13:39:44.141-07:002012-04-26T13:39:44.141-07:00NnN,
Strangely enough, Willis also criticized the...NnN,<br /><br />Strangely enough, Willis also criticized the Svensmark paper and seems to not really buy it:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/svensmarks-cosmic-jackpot-evidence-of-nearby-supernovae-affecting-life-on-earth/#comment-966283<br /><br />Kind of dampens the narrative that he only disagrees with papers that promote the consensus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-24703741955127043632012-04-25T14:44:09.006-07:002012-04-25T14:44:09.006-07:00NnN,
Quite so. Confirmation bias is a human unive...NnN,<br /><br />Quite so. Confirmation bias is a human universal. The scientific method is founded on this recognition of our own fallibility, and is in some ways no more than a catalogue of the extreme measures we are forced to take to reduce its effect. Double blind. Randomised trials. Testable predictions. Eliminating alternatives. Systematic challenge. Experimental evidence.<br /><br />That's why it is so important to talk with people who disagree with us. They have different blindspots, and can reveal for us our own errors, as we reveal theirs. Only through discovering and correcting our errors can we progress; only through surviving well-motivated attack, in circumstances where we have reason to believe any flaws would have been revealed, can we gain justified confidence in our beliefs. We owe a debt of thanks to our opponents - without them we would all descend into dogma.<br /><br />We trust you to find any errors in the Svensmark paper. You'll do it far better than we ever could. That's why we take part in the debate.Piltdownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-63644314062423573822012-04-25T12:42:16.990-07:002012-04-25T12:42:16.990-07:00Ha pathetic trashing of papers WUWT doesn't li...Ha pathetic trashing of papers WUWT doesn't like and so obvious.<br /><br />I notice Svensmark's paper receives a very different treatment.aaaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11666181105235020296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-39232313070554023012012-04-25T10:39:02.344-07:002012-04-25T10:39:02.344-07:00Wouldn't it be just as fair to say I guess now...Wouldn't it be just as fair to say I guess now it's too much to wait until scientists' results are actually published (and checked) before attempting to cite/promote them? :-)<br /><br />Does it matter if quarterly climatologies are used instead of monthly climatologies if you said in your paper that you used monthly climatologies? It surely makes it harder to figure out what they actually did.<br /><br />The suggestion to ask the researchers for the data and explanations is an excellent one, but I have heard that some climate scientists get upset to have climate sceptics calling them up with enquiries all the time. Why should they make the data available to us, when our aim is to try and find something wrong with it? Very reasonable. It has been suggested that the answer is to publish all the data and code with the paper so there can be no doubt about what was done, and so no questions should arise. But that upsets some scientists as well, who feel they have proprietary interests in their data.<br /><br />I think it is a very interesting question. What do you think the ideal solution would be?Piltdownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-78119497998678723792012-04-25T09:16:00.840-07:002012-04-25T09:16:00.840-07:00Poor Willis. You have to give him props for trying...Poor Willis. You have to give him props for trying, though.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.com