Skip to main content

View Diary: By hiring a climate disinformer, Nate Silver undermines his entire premise of data-driven journalism (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Back to square one (0+ / 0-)

    in which you attack Pielke's credentials as "not an actual climate scientist." If you want a credentialed climatologist, I could offer you this guy:

    I have formal training in all these subjects; indeed, even certification of them—a PhD from Cornell in Mathematical Statistics (forecast verification), a Masters of Atmospheric Physics (climate model uses and skill), and even a Bachelors in Meteorology (I served a year as a forecaster in the NWS). Add to this a stint as member of the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, a several-year term as Assistant Editor of Monthly Weather Review, several “peer-reviewed” articles in the Journal of Climate (these are the leading journals), and many other similar things.
    http://wmbriggs.com/...
    And he is your worst nightmare, with opinions 180° from Michael Mann's.

    So, I know this is hard, but will you please post your own credentials, so we can tell how it is that you have the expertise to moderate between other credentialed scientists. Thanks.

    •  this must be vert difficult for you (0+ / 0-)

      which is why you play pielke cherry-picking games. i have provided a wealth of actual examples of him screwing data. i have provided a wealth of examples of actual climate scientists who ridicule pielke. i am not the one screwing data. i am not the one denying the overwhelming scientific consensus. pielke is. and quoting some statistician who is not a climate scientist but does seem to be defending the koch brothers is revealing you as a borderline troll.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:27:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Must be very hard for you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WeatherDem

        to:
        a) admit that you were foolish to attack Pielke on the issue of his credentials, and
        b) to state your own. You do have credentials, don't you? Why would you be reluctant to share?

        As for consensus science, I'm afraid I've been around too long for that to make for a trump card, as "science" has a nasty way of shifting its consensus. I remember all-too-well my father's pile of International Geophysical Year (1958) articles (he was a geologist) predicting global winter. Not to mention the consensus on breastfeeding, ulcers, margarine, sodium ingestion levels, Ehrlich and ZPG, imminent global famine... None of that is an argument against science, but it is cautionary and reason for modesty.

        But the truly dumbest thing you want to do now is to attack me for calling you on your own inadequacy. I made no statement whatsoever denying any scientific fact or that is remotely trollish—I just pointed out a couple of scientists' credentials. Possibly you should find some other way of coping for your own shortcomings.

        Some advice (though I seriously doubt you are capable of listening to any voice not your own): you ought to have done one of two things at the beginning:
        1) ignored my comment entirely
        2) said, "You're right—I shouldn't have attacked Pielke's credentials. But he's still wrong on the merits."

        But the latter would be admitting that you'd erred, and that, as any reader of yours knows, is not something you'd be likely to do under nearly any circumstances.

        •  i'll use very small words (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Amber6541

          so that you might be able to understand them.

          the point is that pielke is not a climate scientist. his denying climate science is not based on science. he doesn't understand statistics and he skews data and his views are ridiculed by actual climate scientists. he is not an expert and he doesn't cite experts and his opinions are defied by the overwhelming consensus of actual experts. my credentials are irrelevant, but to a troll who is trying to change the subject. i cite the climate scientists. i cite the experts.

          as for this:

          As for consensus science, I'm afraid I've been around too long for that to make for a trump card, as "science" has a nasty way of shifting its consensus.
          it is not possible to make a more fatuous "argument." congratulations. i hope you never get sick, because your doctors no doubt will base their recommendations on the medical consensus, and the consensus can't be trusted. i hope you never have children, because you no doubt would side with jenny mccarthy and not have them vaccinated, because the medical consensus says you should, but the consensus can't be trusted.

          my error was to think you were capable of honest and coherent argument.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:02:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In your case (0+ / 0-)

            I was disabused of similar error quite some time ago.

            As for Pielke, in fact he is a climate scientist, in any reasonable meaning of the term, and he doesn't deny climate science, but you are apparently pretty ignorant on that score. His real defect is that he does not agree with you—but I am beginning to wonder if that may not be a virtue.

            •  any reasonable meaning (0+ / 0-)

              other than that he does no research in climate science, has no degree in climate science, misunderstands and/or misrepresents climate science, misunderstands and/or misrepresents statistics, and is ridiculed by actual climate scientists. his defect is extensively documented here and elsewhere. but do keep ignoring the facts. i'm sure he would be proud of you.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:49:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It must be your expertise in climate science (0+ / 0-)

                that allows you to pronounce what is and is not climate science, let alone your expertise in statistics, and your expertise in choosing which other other experts you will defer to. I'm only surprised that Colorado hasn't yet recruited you to replace Pielke.
                Once again, your own credentials for judging are...?

                •  whoosh (0+ / 0-)

                  i cite the overwhelming scientific consensus. which you ignore. keep trolling.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:16:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  To be fair... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    hmi, VClib, WeatherDem

                    ...Al Gore, who has probably had a more profound impact than any other public figure on this issue, is also not a climate scientist, and in fact if you want to speak strictly to credentials, is much less qualified to speak on climate change authoritatively than Mr. Pielke.  And he actually IS a politician (as opposed to Pielke's Phd. in Political Science). In fact the last I checked the only advanced degree Gore holds is a Bachelor's Degree (and not in a science, which he admits he didn't do well in).

                    Yet I don't think there are many people here who would question Gore's credentials to speak authoritively on climate change.

                    Now don't mistake me, my point is not to dismiss what Gore says, or buttress Mr. Pielke's skepticism. I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to attack someone's work, and belittle it, based at least partly on their credentials, it works both ways.  And since the changes in policies required by world leaders to address climate change are largely going to be made by non-scientists, who are going to apply their own reasoning abilities and scepticism to the issue, I'm not certain that this smug dismissal of a contrary opinion because they don't meet your own standards for the proper expertise is the right way to go.

                    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                    by Pi Li on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  and al gore has what (0+ / 0-)

                      to do with this? but please do focus on the one line about pielke not being a climate scientist, rather than, you know, the extensive proof of his butchering data and being excoriated by climate scientists. it's almost as if this is deliberate.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:35:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Rock hard head (0+ / 0-)

                    Nothing gets in.

                    You opined that Pielke is not a climate scientist. Apparently the people who employ and have employed him think otherwise. So, it becomes your problem to back up your words and explain the exalted position from which you get to pronounce who is and is not a climate scientist.

                    You do have some demonstrable expertise, don't you?

                    Or is asking a question like that trolling? Your own private version of lèse-majesté?

                    •  yes (0+ / 0-)
                      Rock hard head

                      Nothing gets in.

                      don't hurt yourself banging your head on your mirror.

                      his employers have nothing to do with it- his ph.d. is poli sci, and he has done zero climate research. i am not hired as a climate expert, he is. i do not butcher data, he does. i do not make a fool of myself contradicting the leading experts in the field, he does. i do not cherry-pick a single sentence of a long post and ignore the wealth of facts listed in the post, you do. that you would defend pielke using his own methods is quite revealing.

                      are you capable of addressing the scientific consensus? are you capable of addressing the many listed instances of pielke butchering data? are you capable of making one intelligent comment?

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:37:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  For excellent reasons, (0+ / 0-)

                        "i am not hired as a climate expert, he is. i do not butcher data, he does. i do not make a fool of myself contradicting the leading experts in the field, he does"

                        Your modesty is entirely deserved.

                        •  i asked three very simple questions (0+ / 0-)
                          are you capable of addressing the scientific consensus? are you capable of addressing the many listed instances of pielke butchering data? are you capable of making one intelligent comment?
                          0 for 3. crawl back under your rock.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:21:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I asked questions, too (0+ / 0-)

                            1) Are you capable of addressing the scientific consensus? Namely, what are your credentials?

                            2) Are you capable of evaluating this complex argument on statistical inferences? What are your credentials?

                            3) Are you capable of a direct answer?
                            [I leave aside your sneer about intelligent comment—your own capability in this regard is starkly evident].

                            Once again: I made no substantive claim. I said you took a cheap pot shot on flimsy grounds. So you did, and so you continue to do. It is, so to speak, your M.O. And on that note, I bid you adieu.

                          •  if you had intelligence and integrity (0+ / 0-)

                            you would address the scientific consensus rather than focusing on me. the scientific consensus is not about me.

                            if you had intelligence and integrity you would address pielke's statistical flaws elucidated in the post. pielke's statistical flaws are not about me.

                            if you had intelligence and integrity you would address substance rather than cherry-picking one tiny and substantively minor sentence.

                            I made no substantice claim.
                            we agree.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:25:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And if you had intelligence and integrity... (0+ / 0-)

                            Ah, enough with counterfactuals.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (139)
  • Community (52)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Bernie Sanders (30)
  • Culture (27)
  • Economy (25)
  • Elections (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • Law (23)
  • Labor (19)
  • 2016 (18)
  • Environment (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site