Australian Politics Forum - populartechnology.net

Poptech

Junior Member

Offline

Posts: 95
U.S.
Gender: male

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #150 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:13pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

[quote author=muso link=1379993344/141#141 date=1380341341]Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

...Nothing that can't be denied. Roll Eyes

Does AR5 include every peer-reviewed paper published on climate change since AR4?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #151 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:15pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

....These aren't the climate scientists you're looking for, Stormtrooper.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #152 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:19pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

[quote author=muso link=1379993344/141#141 date=1380341341]Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

...Nothing that can't be denied. Roll Eyes

Does AR5 include every peer-reviewed paper published on climate change since AR4?

It doesn't have to. It's definitely wide ranging.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #153 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:37pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... It is an absolute lie that I have ever "cyberstalked" anyone making your accusation libelous. It is not illegal to compile and post contact information that is available in the public domain online. What I have done on multiple occasions is demonstrate the computer illiteracy of online bullies by providing them with this information.

From the rules of this forum Quote:

OzPolitic values the privacy of all members. Do not post personal information about other members without their explicit permission. This includes the contents of personal messages and emails, photos, names, IP addresses, phone numbers, locations etc. This includes information that can be found online and instructions on how to find information about specific members. Such behaviour is considered stalking.

Sounds a lot like what you boast of doing "on multiple occasions", doesn't it?

What would motivate such behaviour, but a desire to bully and intimidate?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:50pm by # »

IP Logged

Poptech

Junior Member

Offline

Posts: 95
U.S.
Gender: male

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #154 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

[quote author=muso link=1379993344/141#141 date=1380341341]Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

...Nothing that can't be denied. Roll Eyes

Does AR5 include every peer-reviewed paper published on climate change since AR4?

It doesn't have to. It's definitely wide ranging.

Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

Back to top

IP Logged

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Re: populartechnology.net Reply #155 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm: ... Then it is not comprehensive but selective. The report uses the most credible resources, which doesn't include those which support the denialist's world view, so the denialist denies.
Back to top	IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #156 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

...
Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

The report uses the most credible resources, which doesn't include those which support the denialist's world view, so the denialist denies.

They have been continuously accused of leaving out peer reviewed papers that go against their agenda, how does it make it the most credible sources if they choose only what they want? Then ignore authors that make complaint?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #157 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:28pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

...
They have been continuously accused of leaving out peer reviewed papers that go against their agenda, ...

They may well have been accused by those who hold to a certain world view, but does that make papers that were not considered more credible than those that were?

When denialists discovered that their science was so poor that established peer reviewed journals would not publish their studies, they began setting up parallel peer review processes. These days, to establish the quality of a given paper, the integrity of the peer review must also be considered.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

... how does it make it the most credible sources if they choose only what they want? Then ignore authors that make complaint?

Perhaps they separated the wheat from the chaff and it's the authors of the chaff complaining.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #158 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:04pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

It doesn't have to. It's definitely wide ranging.

Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

Sigh. I can see that you like dictionaries.

Quote:

Definition of comprehensive in English

comprehensive
Pronunciation: /kɒmprɪˈhɛnsɪv/
Translate comprehensive | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
adjective

1including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something:a comprehensive list of sources
of large content or scope; wide-ranging:a comprehensive collection of photographs

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/comprehensive

Sorry, but your definition is not comprehensive. No cigar for you.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #159 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

...
They have been continuously accused of leaving out peer reviewed papers that go against their agenda, ...

They may well have been accused by those who hold to a certain world view, but does that make papers that were not considered more credible than those that were?

When denialists discovered that their science was so poor that established peer reviewed journals would not publish their studies, they began setting up parallel peer review processes. These days, to establish the quality of a given paper, the integrity of the peer review must also be considered.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

... how does it make it the most credible sources if they choose only what they want? Then ignore authors that make complaint?

Perhaps they separated the wheat from the chaff and it's the authors of the chaff complaining.

I agree the peer review process is abysmal at the moment.
Though cherry picking is cherry picking, I don't think you can easily say which paper is credible which isn't.

As the public our job isn't to do our own research, this issue effects us all though so our opinions matter. The only thing we can do is hold up both sides of an argument, scrutinize both, then weigh it up and make an informed decision, that must be flexible enough to change when the information changes. It certainly isn't black and white.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: populartechnology.net Reply #160 - Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:48pm Apparently the WGII report, due for publication in March, will include some workers who are regarded as borderline sceptics. I guess we'll have to wait until that comes out to confirm that. It would probably help in the transparency if they included reasons for accepting or rejecting papers that were considered.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: populartechnology.net
Reply #161 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:42am

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

... the peer review process is abysmal at the moment.

Do you attribute that more to establishment bias or denialist corruption?

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

...
Though cherry picking is cherry picking, I don't think you can easily say which paper is credible which isn't.

I can't. That's why we have the IPCC and other credible bodies.

Is it cherry picking? Is it sorting the wheat from the chaff? Without making the choices, can decisions be made?

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

As the public our job isn't to do our own research, this issue effects us all though so our opinions matter. The only thing we can do is hold up both sides of an argument, scrutinize both, then weigh it up and make an informed decision, that must be flexible enough to change when the information changes. It certainly isn't black and white.

I reckon our most difficult task is to recognise when our world view is impeding rational decision making.

I don't like what the IPCC says, but I respect their integrity. If you like, I'm prepared to accept the inconvenient truth. Many, it seems, find that impossible.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 29^th, 2013 at 9:07am by # »

IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: populartechnology.net Reply #162 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:58am # wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm: Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm: ... Then it is not comprehensive but selective. The report uses the most credible resources, which doesn't include those which support the denialist's world view, so the denialist denies. lol then it is ideological toilet paper.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: populartechnology.net Reply #163 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:36am Didn't you read the post? The IPCC doesn't include ideological toilet paper such as the Idsos' self publshed "papers". (dang da dang dang dang)
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: populartechnology.net Reply #164 - Sep 29^th, 2013 at 9:58am muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:36am: Didn't you read the post? The IPCC doesn't include ideological toilet paper such as the Idsos' self publshed "papers". (dang da dang dang dang) You are obviously talking about the toilet paper you see. I am referring to the ideological tiolet paper called the IPCC AR5.
Back to top	IP Logged