Some scientists get it.

The other day Hal had a real good post up about how, yet again, liberal social science types – talk about an oxymoron – had found that conservatives hated science, proving how dumb they are. Of course the devil was in the unreported/hidden details. What conservatives objected to wasn’t science, but how politicized so many people claiming to be doing science, but really doing nothing of the sort, were, but considering the source and the narrative, you would never, ever find that out either from the social science types behind this survey or the LSM. Of course the comments, despite Hal’s best efforts, devolved into an argument about AGW, which for conservatives is the de facto proof of why they distrust the so called scientific community peddling this nonsense.

Like Hal, I was hoping to avoid this post resulting in the same rehash of the same tired arguments, but the fact is that, this story, dealing with scientists at NASA finally getting tired of the cultists leading the AGW collectivist agenda and their shenanigans, actually serves to up my credence of the members of the scientific community, and hence is relevant.

Basically we have people that want the scientific process to actually be allowed to work, and to let the truth come out for a change pointing out that relying solely on blatantly false and unscientific models, rather than the empirical data – you know the stuff that the AGW cultists conveniently destroyed misplaced – is not just bad practice but unscientific. We can rehash the argument about how loaded with crap these models are, with the same people coming to the defense of the indefensible, but I do not even want to bother. The fact is the empirical data wouldn’t be so easy to rig, unless they engage in the massive massaging of cherry picked pieces of said data, like we found out they did after the East Anglia revelations, and then destroyed the data, yet again, to prevent people from understanding what a crime they committed.

I also do not think it is a coincidence, and very relevant, that the people behind this letter are former NASA scientists. They are likely retired older people from back in the day, where/when they took scientific work seriously, and would have had a huge problem with the politicized bullshit the left pushes as science these days, and/or people that left or where removed from NASA for not toeing the political line. I am sure the MSM will do its best to not report any of this controversial news – I looked but found nothing – and if NASA holds true to form, they will ignore or give lip service and not much else to this request. After all, the money is there for those that give big government what they want, and what they want is the narrative that lets them push the “man made” nonsense their new world order and tax schemes are predicated on.

Still, it does show some scientists, even if they are old, take science seriously. Hopefully we get a lot more of this too. It would help to make people resort to well informed decisions and enhance the trust that is sorely lacking in the block of politicized left leaning community that pretends they are scientist like those beholden to the church of AGW.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Hansen at GISS has done more harm to the AGW movement and NASA than most people realize. When he isn’t literally calling for the end of industrialized civilization he is using NASA letterhead paper to tell government officials in other countries to obey his wishes.

    Additionally, numerous sites have exposed Hansens personal alterations of data sets and easily debunked temperature calculations based on nearly non-existent or fraudulent data. Hansen crossed the line from scientist to religious nut sometime in the 80’s, and should have been booted from GISS then as a crackpot.

    Thumb up 1

  2. JimK

    WARNING: This is not an excuse to have the same AGW argument yet again. Comment on the story. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. ;)

    Thumb up 2

  3. Seattle Outcast

    OK, but Hansen IS the target of the NASA scientists’ ire – I merely wanted to point out that he’s been digging this hole for himself for at least 25 years.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Kimpost

    The criticism is lacking of specifics. Unfortunately it often is. The following is from NASA, on openness.

    http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_science.html

    I want to make sure that NASA employees hear directly from me on how I view the issue of scientific openness and the role of public affairs within the agency.

    Image left: Administrator Michael Griffin. Photo credit: NASA/Renee Bouchard.

    First, NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public. The basis for this principle is codified in the Space Act of 1958, which requires NASA to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”

    Second, the job of the Office of Public Affairs, at every level in NASA, is to convey the work done at NASA to our stakeholders in an intelligible way. It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff. To ensure timely release of information, there must be cooperation and coordination between our scientific and engineering community and our public affairs officers.

    Third, we have identified a number of areas in which clarification and improvements to the standard operating procedures of the Office of Public Affairs can and will be made. The revised policy, when complete, will be disseminated throughout the agency.

    I want to encourage employees to discuss this issue and bring their concerns to management so we can work together to ensure that NASA’s policies and procedures appropriately support our commitment to openness.

    Mike Griffin
    NASA Administrator

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  7. Iconoclast

    See my comment in that thread…

    That’s like looking for a needle in a haystack, yes? If you’re referring to the “Blinded by Science” thread, you made a boatload of comments, so any attempt to refer back to that onslaught of verbal diarrhea is asking for trouble from the Powers that Be…

    …the analysis demonstrated that [blah blah blah]

    Oh, I’m sure it demonstrated it quite convincingly to your personal satisfaction, but to claim that “demonstration” to be universally acceptable is fallacious projecting. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the demonstration was universally acceptable…

    So your post is a flawed claim…

    So you’re saying that the letter in question is “a flawed claim”? Your personal opinion (that the “claim” is “flawed”) trumps that of former NASA scientists, astronauts and employees?

    Perhaps your own assessment is flawed.

    It’s almost impossible to respond to such vagueness other than to request detail and evidence.

    So you’re implying that the charges in the letter are unfounded, then? The evidence (or lack thereof) of what the letter charges is in NASA literature and on NASA’a web sites. The “evidence” you seek is readily available via a few mouse clicks…

    They seem to want ‘proof’, but ‘proof’ is for mathematics rather than science. It’s puzzling why they don’t realise that.

    No, what’s “puzzling” is how you infer from the letter that they want “proof” of anything. Did you actually read the letter? It appears that you didn’t.

    Thumb up 6

  8. CM

    That’s like looking for a needle in a haystack, yes?

    Not at all, it was my first comment so anyone following the thread would have definitely seen it. Unless they simply don’t care about things that don’t suit.
    Again:

    From the paper:

    Although the confidence variable has its limitations (Peterson 1981; Smith 1981), it is the most frequently asked question relating to science in the GSS and the only repeated science item going back to 1974. I examined the 2006 to 2010 GSS in supplementary analyses because it contains a wide variety of items that probe different aspects of public trust in the scientific community. These analyses suggest that the confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science.

    http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

    If the analysis has been done, and approximation is reasonable, then is there really a ‘problem’?
    Either Mary Ritenour also pointed this out to Reynolds and he ignored it, or he failed to do a basic check of the quote.

    Oh, I’m sure it demonstrated it quite convincingly to your personal satisfaction, but to claim that “demonstration” to be universally acceptable is fallacious projecting. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the demonstration was universally acceptable…

    Ah I see, you’ll accept only what suits. If that’s the case, and you’re unwilling or unable to explain why, any discussion is pointless. Do you have any reason to doubt that “these analyses suggest that the confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science”?

    So you’re saying that the letter in question is “a flawed claim”?

    No, what Alex suggests in the part I quoted was flawed. But that’s always what happens here – Alex, or someone else, states something in an initial post, it’s shown to be either wrong or unsupported, and yet that’s ignored and it gets claimed again later.

    Your personal opinion (that the “claim” is “flawed”) trumps that of former NASA scientists, astronauts and employees?
    Perhaps your own assessment is flawed.

    No, as mentioned, I was referring to the premise on which he set up this main post.
    Not many scientists on that list. Not sure if any of the few scientists that are on the list have any experience or knowledge of climate science. I can’t find any. Given the claims made and the lack of specifics, the letter appears to be political. Some of the main players (the two names given for detail) are from Heartland. Perhaps next week the same people will put their name to a letter outlining the benefits of smoking. http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/21/dear-phillip-morris-heartlands-love-letter-to-big-tobacco/

    So you’re implying that the charges in the letter are unfounded, then? The evidence (or lack thereof) of what the letter charges is in NASA literature and on NASA’a web sites. The “evidence” you seek is readily available via a few mouse clicks…

    Ah this old classic. “I don’t need to give you evidence of the conspiracy man, it’s everywhere around you!”
    If you’re going to make claims, the onus is on YOU to support those claims. If it’s so obvious, it should be very easy to do so.
    So yeah, given that the letter smacks of politics (the standard ‘settled’ meme) and not climate science, and contains no detail whatsoever, I’m going to assume it’s yet another load of unfounded accusations. Add it to the pile.
    And digging into the names, it throws up no surprises. It may be that Harrison Schmitt, of the good ole Heartland Institute, has trolled the ranks of retired right wing NASA engineers (again, don’t see any climate specialists on this list) for yet another anti-factual denialosphere non-news story. And the usual suspects just swallow it. Still, I guess at least this time the list didn’t include orthodontists, podiatrists, or veterinarians. Some sort of progress there maybe.

    No, what’s “puzzling” is how you infer from the letter that they want “proof” of anything. Did you actually read the letter? It appears that you didn’t.

    I read the whole letter (unlike others, I always read source documents and articles before commenting).
    http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
    The very first line:

    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.

    So I must assume that you didn’t read it.

    As former employees of NASA don’t you think they should know full well that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues?

    Thumb up 0

  9. Section8

    As former employees of NASA don’t you think they should know full well that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues?

    Yet obviously they see issues with how NASA handles dissemination of information. As former employees, I would think they know a hell of a lot more about how NASA was run then and now than you. Perhaps I’m wrong. Do you work for NASA, with NASA, or have ever worked for NASA? Granted, this is a public forum so I would [not] expect that you should give too much info that might identify you if any, but just curious. But you seem to be the resident expert about NASA now, so do tell.

    And digging into the names, it throws up no surprises. It may be that Harrison Schmitt, of the good ole Heartland Institute, has trolled the ranks of retired right wing NASA engineers (again, don’t see any climate specialists on this list)

    So that makes climate scientists inherently left wing? That would basically validate the complaint of mistrust with politics bleeding into objective science. I mean if anyone who was on this letter is by default right wing according to you then who has made this political? Them or you?

    It’s amazing that even former employees of NASA would now be blasted as idiots, and compared to orthodontists, or veterinarians in contribution to the agency. If that’s the broad based reaction of anyone who would challenge anything, no wonder you’ll never find opposing view points or studies that don’t fall in line with an expected outcome. Who’d want to be ripped to shred? And there my friend is the New Science many of us fear we live with. Not objective, just insistence of conforming or else.

    Thumb up 3

  10. CM

    Yet obviously they see issues with how NASA handles dissemination of information.

    Well fine, but as the chief scientist responded:

    If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse

    Instead they’ve made specific claims that NASA:
    * makes “unproven remarks in public releases and websites”
    * claims that “man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change”
    * claims the science is “settled”
    * provides “unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change”
    * provides “advocacy of an extreme position”
    * makes “unproven and unsupported remarks”

    Slightly more than issues over “dissemination of information”. They’re claiming a LOT more than that. And yet apparently what they seek is for discourse to be restricted.

    As former employees, I would think they know a hell of a lot more about how NASA was run then and now than you. Perhaps I’m wrong.

    I’m sure they do. Which makes it even more puzzling why they seem to be ignoring the fact that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues.
    They’re talking about public statements, not internal processes. Therefore the evidence is inherently all available to everyone. We just need someone to point to it. But no…..

    Do you work for NASA, with NASA, or have ever worked for NASA?

    No, but again I don’t see how that is relevant. What IS relevant is the expertise behind the people who have signed this. As the Guardian piece says:

    Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.

    So that makes climate scientists inherently left wing?

    Not at all. Not sure how that logic works.

    That would basically validate the complaint of mistrust with politics bleeding into objective science. I mean if anyone who was on this letter is by default right wing according to you then who has made this political? Them or you?

    They did by:
    * signing up to a letter organised by known right-wing climate-science deniers like Harrison Schmitt and Walter Cunningham
    * putting their names to unfounded accusations and the usual rubbish

    The letter smacks of politics, the people behind it support that.

    It’s amazing that even former employees of NASA would now be blasted as idiots, and compared to orthodontists, or veterinarians in contribution to the agency.

    I made no comment about their contribution to the agency. For all I know, they were all brilliant in their field. As are some orthodontists and veterinarians. I don’t think you’re correctly understood what I wrote. I think anyone putting their names to this is an idiot. But that’s got nothing to do with how valuable they were to NASA in their time, in their field.

    If that’s the broad based reaction of anyone who would challenge anything, no wonder you’ll never find opposing view points or studies that don’t fall in line with an expected outcome.

    I have no issue with people “challenging anything”, I have issues with people
    * making unfounded accusations
    * making inaccurate claims
    * pretending that they’d be ok when it’s “proven”

    Scientists challenge each other every day. Following established procedures. Not via the media, in blogs, using simply accusations. That’s politics, not science.
    Not all “challenges” are equal.

    Who’d want to be ripped to shred?

    No idea why they wish to put themselves in this position. Perhaps they know that NASA itself isn’t the target audience. It’s people like most of those on this blog. It’s WUWT. It’s donors to Heartland.

    And there my friend is the New Science many of us fear we live with. Not objective, just insistence of conforming or else.

    No, ‘New Science’ appears to be ‘Blog Science’, where the expertise and experience of the actual people in the field is apparently meaningless because someone claimed something on a blog, or some people with 0 hours of experience from 1000 years of work wrote a letter. Or continuing long-debunked ludicrous narratives based on nothing but motive.
    Meanwhile, thankfully actual science continues on regardless.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Iconoclast

    Not at all, it was my first comment so anyone following the thread would have definitely seen it.

    Of course, just like anyone can see every piece of hay in a haystack. The trick is knowing which one is the “needle”, as it were, and since you have subsequently specified that it was your first comment, that job is considerably easier. Ironic, given your complaints of “such vagueness” earlier.

    Unless they simply don’t care about things that don’t suit.

    Well, I confess that I am not terribly impressed with such lack of specificity, with such vagueness, as it were. As for “not caring”, well, it appears that you didn’t care to specify which of your comments you were referring to initially, and only subsequenbtly bothered to clarify.

    Oh, and there was no need to repeat the quote/cite here. But thanks for wasting bandwidth.

    Ah I see, you’ll accept only what suits

    Again, guilty as charged. I can comprehend the difference between “demonstrate” and “stipulate”, and it doesn’t suit me when someone tries conflate the two. Nothing was “demonstrated” in your quote, only stipulated. The confidence variable was pretty much all Gauchat had to work with if he wanted to study the period in question (1974 through 2010), as it was the only repeated variable that went back that far. He had little choice but to justify using it. All he really stipulated was that he couldn’t see a valid reason to rule it out, based on his analysis of other, more recent variables. But again, nothing was “demonstrated”, here, unless we play fast and loose with word meanings.

    Furthermore, it only applies to the context of the study itself; trying to extrapolate the stipulation into a general rule (an unfavorable view of certain scientists ==> an unfavorable view of the scientific enterprise as a whole, in general) strikes me as reckless.

    Based on these observations, it appears that my original assessments were correct — you were indeed quite satisfied that this stipulation “demonstrates” the afore-mentioned extrapolation, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Ah I see, you’ll accept only what suits

    When was the last time you accepted something that didn’t suit you? Stones and glass houses…

    No, what Alex suggests in the part I quoted was flawed.

    Only if we recklessly try to extrapolate a stipulation for justifing the use of a specific variable in a specificstudy into some kind of generalized rule. Otherwise, the assessment that the “post was a flawed claim” is itself flawed, or reckless at the very least.

    If you’re going to make claims, the onus is on YOU to support those claims.

    Yes indeed, chief, and that is precisely what the letter in question is complaining about, NASA literature and web sites smaking unsupported claims.

    If it’s so obvious, it should be very easy to do so.

    Yes! You’re on a roll, chief. So why doesn’t NASA take the hint?

    I’m going to assume it’s yet another load of unfounded accusations.

    Ah I see, you’ll accept only what suits…

    I read the whole letter…

    Well, it appears that once you got past that first sentence (the one you quoted), you read it with your eyes shut:

    So yeah, given that the letter smacks of politics (the standard ‘settled’ meme)

    From the letter:

    With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    To continue…

    So I must assume that you didn’t read it.

    You are free to assume anything that “suits”…

    Thumb up 2

  12. CM

    I’m struggling to find anything worth responding to there, it’s all so woeful. I’ll try some bulletpoints.

    * I’m sorry you found it so difficult to find my relevant comments in the other thread. I made the fundamental mistake of assuming you’d read the other thread. I apologise. I also apologise for bringing the relevant quote across to this thread and thus upsetting your delicate sensibilities and the overall balance of the internet/universe. Obviously there was a middle-ground somewhere between referring to the other thread and quoting the relevant part that escapes me. Perhaps I need to go back to internet school? Anyway, your attempt to compare my lack of specific reference to comments in the other thread to the lack of specifics/evidence in the letter was hilarious and provided me with my first big laugh for the day, it’s just so desparate. Thanks.

    * Your comments about whether the results were a reasonable approximation for attitudes towards science seem simply comprise of “I simply don’t believe it”. Why don’t you believe it? The researcher says there is a reasonable approximation, what evidence do you have to dispute this (sorry, but I don’t include “I simply don’t believe it” as ‘evidence’, unlike others here)? You’re being awfully vague, which you apparently hate (although, of course, I don’t see any complaint from you about a lack of specifics in the letter).

    * “He had little choice but to justify using it”- on what basis do you make this claim? That assumes a complete lack of professionalism. On what basis do you just assume that? Does this researcher have a history I don’t know about? Seems to me like you’re attempting to filter this through an ideological filter, rather than accepting the specifics as they are presented. Unless you have good reason (and assuming ideological motive isn’t reason) the benefit of the doubt must surely be given to the research. Otherwise, what’s the point of research, if we’re all allowed to simply dismiss it on the basis of “I simply don’t believe it”?

    * When did I last accept something that didn’t suit? That assumes I have such staunch and rigid and fixed opinions that contradictory data/information is rejected. I reject that. If there is a problem with the study, then there is a problem with the study. If NASA has been behaving inappropriately, then they have been behaving inappropriately.

    * Unsupported claims – nice, you have no issue with the subject of this whole thing, our source document itself, containing nothing but unsupported claims, and yet apparently the claim in the letter about unsupported claims is to be taken seriously. Seriously? You’re seriously signing yourself up to that position? Yikes.

    * Who are these 100’s of well-known climate scientists, and 10’s of thousands of other scientists? Surely they’re not referring to The Petition are they?

    *All your other comments are essentially just a 5 year old in the playground responding with “no, you are!”. You’ve ignored most of what I said.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Kimpost

    I don’t know if you guys have read this respons to the letter, from NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati?

    “NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

    “Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

    “If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”

    Thumb up 0

  14. Iconoclast

    You’ve ignored most of what I said.

    Such profound irony…

    I’m struggling to find anything worth responding to there…

    And yet you manage to barf up three fairly verbose paragraphs, two somewhat less verbose and a couple of two-liners. Your “struggle” must be the stuff of legend…

    I’m sorry you found it so difficult to find my relevant comments in the other thread. I made the fundamental mistake of…

    …not simply saying, “See my first comment on that thread”. It’s ironic that you complain about “vagueness” when you are guilty of same.

    Perhaps I need to go back to internet school?

    Perhaps.

    Anyway, your attempt to compare my lack of specific reference to comments in the other thread to the lack of specifics/evidence in the letter was hilarious and provided me with my first big laugh for the day, it’s just so desparate. Thanks.

    Laugh all you want. Irony is irony, but don’t whine about “vagueness” when you (proudly?) demonstrate it yourself. (Note the proper use of the word “demonstrate”, btw).

    Your comments about whether the results were a reasonable approximation for attitudes towards science seem simply comprise of “I simply don’t believe it”.

    What “seems” to you is irrelevant.

    Why don’t you believe it?

    Non sequitur. We haven’t established that I “don’t believe it”. You simply proclaimed as much.

    The issue is, quite simply, that Gauchat didn’t “demonstrate” what you claimed was “demonstrated”.

    The researcher says there is a reasonable approximation…

    Yes. He said it was a reasonable approximation. He didn’t “demonstrate” that it was. He simply said that it was. I guess, for you, a scientist saying something qualifies as a “demonstration”.

    He had little choice but to justify using it”- on what basis do you make this claim?

    Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? What part of “The confidence variable was pretty much all Gauchat had to work with if he wanted to study the period in question (1974 through 2010), as it was the only repeated variable that went back that far.” do you fail to understand?

    That assumes a complete lack of professionalism.

    Not on my part — the assumption is in your mind only. The question is, why do you persist in making unfounded assumptions?

    Seems to me…

    Again, what “seems to you” is hardly relevant, unless you can demonstrate that what “seems” really is.

    That assumes I have such staunch and rigid and fixed opinions that contradictory data/information is rejected.

    Nonsense. “When was the last time you accepted something that didn’t suit you?” simply assumes that you are capable of accepting something that doesn’t suit you. If the assumption is unwarranted, fine, but don’t criticize others if you are just as guilty. That would be known as hypocrisy.

    You do have a flair for reading into statements things that Just Aren’t There. And of course, there is the possibility that there is simply nothing under the sun you consider “unsuitable”. More power to you if such is the case.

    …nice, you have no issue with [blah blah blah]

    The only thing I have an “issue” with is this claim that something was “demonstrated” when such is clearly not the case. Of course, like I said originally, I am confident that it was adequately “demonstrated” to your personal satisfaction — a Scientist said it, after all.

    As for me, I am willing to accept it as a stipulation, which is what it is, but I am leery of attempts to make it a Generalized Universal Truth, which appears to be your objective.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Such profound irony…

    Huh? What did I ignore (profoundly)?
    You do know what irony is, right?

    …not simply saying, “See my first comment on that thread”. It’s ironic that you complain about “vagueness” when you are guilty of same.

    I don’t see how that’s even remotely a meaningful comparison to the vagueness in the letter.

    The issue is, quite simply, that Gauchat didn’t “demonstrate” what you claimed was “demonstrated”

    The author’s analysis demonstrated it to him (he later said that his analyses consistently show unfavorable attitudes). Otherwise he presumably wouldn’t have claimed it.
    Point is, both Hal and Alex were not correct in what they claimed. You seem to be ignoring that aspect, in additional to the substantive matter of the vagueness of the letter itself (you know, the whole point).

    Laugh all you want. Irony is irony, but don’t whine about “vagueness” when you (proudly?) demonstrate it yourself. (Note the proper use of the word “demonstrate”, btw).

    I proudly demonstrated vagueness? WTF? How was my ‘pride’ on this demonstrated, and where was I vague in any meaningful way?

    Yes. He said it was a reasonable approximation. He didn’t “demonstrate” that it was. He simply said that it was. I guess, for you, a scientist saying something qualifies as a “demonstration”.

    The analyses demonstrated that trust in scientists/scientific institutions is a good proxy for trust in science.
    Regardless, replace ‘demonstrated’, or add “to the author”, with whatever you like. It changes nothing. Either you have good reason to question it (and the author’s professionalism) or you don’t. You don’t seem to have good reason. But you’re doing it anyway.

    What “seems” to you is irrelevant.

    I was simply pointed out your obvious desperation, which you seem intent on demonstrating once again.

    Non sequitur. We haven’t established that I “don’t believe it”. You simply proclaimed as much.

    The issue is, quite simply, that Gauchat didn’t “demonstrate” what you claimed was “demonstrated”.

    Well I’ll wait for the (i.e. your) explanation which proves my proclamation to be wrong.
    As the specific subject analysis wasn’t provided to us (“analysis available upon request from author”), patently it hasn’t been demonstrated to us. But the reasonable approximation was obviously demonstrated to him. You can bitch about not having access to the details of that so that you can decide for yourself, but without the details you can’t really claim it’s wrong. All you can do is claim that you don’t believe it, which means you’re questioning the author’s ability to do his job properly. Which you’ve done with your “He had little choice but to justify using it” claim.

    Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? What part of “The confidence variable was pretty much all Gauchat had to work with if he wanted to study the period in question (1974 through 2010), as it was the only repeated variable that went back that far.” do you fail to understand?

    Here is the quote again:

    Although the confidence variable has its limitations (Peterson 1981; Smith 1981), it is the most frequently asked question relating to science in the GSS and the only repeated science item going back to 1974. I examined the 2006 to 2010 GSS in supplementary analyses because it contains a wide variety of items that probe different aspects of public trust in the scientific community. These analyses suggest that the confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science.

    Note the second sentence. He undertook “supplementary analyses” which contained “a wide variety of items that probe different aspects of public trust in the scientific community”. The third sentence makes it clear (could not make it clearer) that is was those “analyses” which suggested to the author that the “confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science”.
    He says “wide variety of items” and yet you’re claiming “the confidence variable was pretty much all Gauchat had to work with”? Why?

    Within the conclusion he states:

    In supplementary analyses not presented here, I compared results for the confidence in science measure to other attitudes toward science. A wide variety of outcomes measuring public attitudes toward science were predicted using model specifications identical to those shown in this study. These analyses consistently show unfavorable attitudes among conservatives, which corroborate the findings presented here (analysis available upon request from author)

    Again, not just about “the most frequently asked question” then.

    Not on my part — the assumption is in your mind only. The question is, why do you persist in making unfounded assumptions?

    Well it’s probably a reasonable assumption that you can get yourself dressed in the morning, but the more you post the less I see that as reasonable.

    Can you please clarify what you meant by “He had little choice but to justify using it” if you didn’t in fact mean that he wasn’t acting professionally. I.e. if you didn’t mean that he was looking to justify something he’d already decided on, what exactly did you mean?

    Again, what “seems to you” is hardly relevant, unless you can demonstrate that what “seems” really is.

    Oh I see, you’re not even remotely interested in actual discussion. That’s not an assumption, you just provided clear evidence.

    Nonsense. “When was the last time you accepted something that didn’t suit you?” simply assumes that you are capable of accepting something that doesn’t suit you. If the assumption is unwarranted, fine, but don’t criticize others if you are just as guilty. That would be known as hypocrisy.

    I’m capable of accepting something that doesn’t match the existing ideas/opinions I hold. But I don’t consider that that ‘something’ is ‘unsuitable’. It is what it is. Is that ok with you?

    You do have a flair for reading into statements things that Just Aren’t There.

    Look at where I am. Look at 90% of the responses I get to my comments. It’s not really a surprise. But I’m not sure that’s even happened here.

    And of course, there is the possibility that there is simply nothing under the sun you consider “unsuitable”. More power to you if such is the case.

    That’s exceptionally close to being meaningless.

    The only thing I have an “issue” with is this claim that something was “demonstrated” when such is clearly not the case.

    Rubbish, your comments clearly make it clear that you agree with the letter. E.g. “So why doesn’t NASA take the hint?” (i.e. you believe it’s up to NASA now to lift it’s game and do what these people say, which must mean you agree with it). However, just like the authors, you refuse to put forward supporting examples.
    The NASA response (Kimpost quoted it) was all they have to do.

    Of course, like I said originally, I am confident that it was adequately “demonstrated” to your personal satisfaction — a Scientist said it, after all.

    I’m sorry you’re proceeded down this pointless avenue based on your misinterpretation. It wasn’t demonstrated to me, but I’m happy to take what was found in supplementary analyses and summarised in that paper at face value unless I have a good reason not to. I don’t have a reason. You certainly haven’t provided one.

    Your “a Scientist said it, after all” does support the view that you probably hold them in low esteem though (which of course is what the study was partly about). So yeah, for now (at least) I’ll stick with my assumption that you’re criticising his professionalism, and probably because the outcome doesn’t suit your politics/ideology. You could always give me a reason not to assume that, but the more you post, the more evidence you seem to provide.

    As for me, I am willing to accept it as a stipulation, which is what it is, but I am leery of attempts to make it a Generalized Universal Truth, which appears to be your objective.

    A ‘Generalized Universal Truth’? WTF?! Um no, you seemed to have missed the point entirely, even though it has been written once in response to Hal, once in response to Alex, and at least once to you. Obviously it’s never going to get through.

    Thumb up 0

  16. JimK

    People, really. Just look at this shit. It’s turning into hundreds of lines of the most douchebaggy nitpicking imaginable.

    Please stop enabling and encouraging this shit. I really, really, really hate this nonsense. As do most of you. So let the fire die without oxygen, shall we?

    Thumb up 0

  17. Mississippi Yankee

    JimK
    Have you thought of re-introducing Lee’s practice of re-directing people to the anal warts site? Certainly there must be an app to do so on a temporary basis right?

    Yanno, two days “in the hole”

    Thumb up 0

  18. JimK

    MY: like a time-out corner? I like it. I’ll have to see if WordPress allows that. I’m sure someone somewhere wrote a plugin that does it I just have to find it.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Iconoclast

    People, really. Just look at this shit. It’s turning into hundreds of lines of the most douchebaggy nitpicking imaginable

    Well, Jim, we are honoring your initial warning:

    JimK says: April 11, 2012 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm (UTC -4)

    WARNING: This is not an excuse to have the same AGW argument yet again. Comment on the story. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. ;)

    So, for the record, we are NOT discussing AGW. We are discussing a research paper that allegedly challenges to correctness of the initial posting on this thread. I am truly sorry that the method of discussion doesn’t meet with your approval, but I honestly do not believe that my method of debate has changed since I used to post here a couple of years ago. Seriously, Jim, if I am not allowed to discuss what I choose in the manner I choose, then WTF is the point???

    I guess you must agree with CM’s asinine observations 100%, since we are not allowed to “take his bait” or whatever. We are all supposed to kowtow to him by letting his comments stand, it appears. Sorry, but I cannot promise compliance. WTF happened to Thunderdome? Did it get overwritten by the new software/look-and-feel? I cannot promise to not do what I typically do, so you have a choice. You can choose to simply not read annoying posts from annoying jag-offs such as myself, or you can ban my sorry ass and be done with it.

    Although the confidence variable has its limitations (Peterson 1981; Smith 1981), it is the most frequently asked question relating to science in the GSS and the only repeated science item going back to 1974. I examined the 2006 to 2010 GSS in supplementary analyses because it contains a wide variety of items that probe different aspects of public trust in the scientific community. These analyses suggest that the confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science.

    CM has quoted the above passage ad nauseam in his idiotic attempt to “prove” that HAL-10000 and AlexCT were “wrong” to separate distrust of scientists from distrust of science. CM has repeatedly claimed that the above passage “demonstrates” that HAL-10000 and AlexCT’s claim was “flawed”, and he has subsequently flat out said they were wrong.

    My point is that there is no “demonstration” at all — it’s merely a stipulation. Nothing was “demonstrated” to Right-Thinking, or to AlexCT or HAL-10000, or to CM or myself, or even to Gauchat himself. In all cases where CM cut and pasted that paragraph, in NO case was the word “demonstrate” (or any derivative thereof) used. Gauchat claimed that analyses of other variables SUGGESTED that “the confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science”. SUGGESTED, not “demonstrated”.

    “Suggestion” leaves much more room for error or re-interpretation than “demonstration” does. It’s really that simple. Based on this, we cannot proclaim that AlexCTor HAL-10000 were “wrong”. The best we can do, if we are going to maintain our collective pretense toward the scientific method, is say that Gauchat’s study suggests they may be in error. May be. But then that’s pretty much true for many of things we say from day to day.

    When I Google “Conservatives distrust scientists”, I only get back a couple of hits that actually uses the word “scientists”; the vast majority of hits use the term “science”. The idea that we cannot separate the two issues is nonsense, but this nonsense has apparently been legitimized by the paper in question. Thanks to the actions of this Sociologist, it’s become “okay” to paint Conservatives with the broad “anti-Science” brush, which, again, is unadulterated nonsense. As a Conservative, I know full-well that I can trust the scientific enterprise while being leery of those who practice the craft, just as I can trust our system of Government as spelled out by the Constitution while being leery of the politicians, appointees (e.g. Justices) and bureaucrats who run the Government from day to day.

    If we apply the logic suggested by Gauchat’s paper to the political realm, we would be able to claim that a distrust of politicians => distrust of our system of Government. I suppose that such a conflation might make sense to liberals, who seem to want to do away with our Constitutional Republic and replace is with a Socialist Utopia, especially when the politicians in question are Conservatives.

    He says “wide variety of items” and yet you’re claiming “the confidence variable was pretty much all Gauchat had to work with”? Why?

    I have already asnwered this question, yet CM insists on barfing it up yet again. The answer, which CM will no doubt ignore again, is (emphasis added):

    Although the confidence variable has its limitations (Peterson 1981; Smith 1981), it is the most frequently asked question relating to science in the GSS and the only repeated science item going back to 1974.

    My initial answer was:

    The confidence variable was pretty much all Gauchat had to work with if he wanted to study the period in question (1974 through 2010), as it was the only repeated variable that went back that far. He had little choice but to justify using it.

    I’m at a loss as to how I could make it any clearer, but CM appears unable to grasp it. As far as “justify using it” is concerned, remember that the question itself talks about scientists and not the practice of science itself. Since the question talks about scientists and Gauchat’s paper discusses the distrust of science, Gauchat had to justify the conflation, and used the analyses of other variables, which only covered the five-year period of 2006-2010 (inclusive), to do so. If this observation “calls Gauchat’s professionalism into question” as CM insists, well, so be it.

    Thumb up 1

  20. JimK

    I have a choice?

    Excuse the fuck out of me? Just who in the sweet fuck are you to give me a choice here? Regardless of basic political philosophy, this is private fucking property. AKA, my digital living room, and you don’t get to come in here dictating terms. You can fuck RIGHT the hell up out of here for all I give a fuck.

    You get exactly ONE of these kinds of posts with me these days. OBVIOUSLY, since CM is still here, I don’t just hand out bans willy nilly. But this kind of shit just chaps my goddamned ass. If you don’t like my rules, get the fuck out. It’s that simple. I’m sick to fucking death of the pedantic childishness, and just so we’re clear? I’M NOT LEE. I MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THINGS, AND YOU CAN ACCEPT THAT OR LEAVE. What you won’t do is issue me ultimatums or tell me how things will be run around here.

    I’m sick of the non-stop nitpicking 300-comment-long threads that go around and around and around in circles. OBVIOUSLY CM IS NEVER GOING TO ADMIT HE’S WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING, EVER. That’s his thing. He’s a fucking asshole who pretends to be this intelligent, civil person. He WANTS you to spend as many hours being pedantic as he does, that way he can search through every word you wrote looking for a new way to lengthen and extend the argument.

    IT. NEVER. ENDS.

    See, I wasn’t gonna explain myself this time, so I’ll stop now. Bottom line? Like it or lump it, as me old Gran used to say. Or, in parenting terms: BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT’S WHY.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Iconoclast

    Just who in the sweet fuck are you to give me a choice here?

    I ain’t “giving” you squat, Jim. The choices I pointed out Just Are. They exist INDEPENDENTLY of whether a jerk like me points them out to you — I didn’t personally manufacture them. Jeez, throw a tantrum why don’t you?

    YOU are the one who’s complaining about endless threads and hundred-line postings and whatnot. YOU are the one who’s sick of this, that and the other. I just pointed out (not “gave you”) a couple of ways to keep the BP down, that’s all.

    I’M NOT LEE. I MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THINGS, AND YOU CAN ACCEPT THAT OR LEAVE.

    I simply point out that I cannot promise to never engage CM. Since I do have a modicum of respect for you (childish temper tantrums notwithstanding) and the late Lee, I will choose to leave. You can delete my account or not, I don’t care either way.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    I’m sick of the non-stop nitpicking 300-comment-long threads that go around and around and around in circles. OBVIOUSLY CM IS NEVER GOING TO ADMIT HE’S WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING, EVER. That’s his thing. He’s a fucking asshole who pretends to be this intelligent, civil person. He WANTS you to spend as many hours being pedantic as he does, that way he can search through every word you wrote looking for a new way to lengthen and extend the argument.

    I called that after the second time I got involved into a discussion with ‘em. Once I realized I was dealing with a con man I used to think it was the noble thing to take the fight to his bullshit too. It’s a total waste of time. Eventually you just end up pissed at the overuse of his pedantic tactic that he just wants an honest discussion and start going off on him, making you look bad. The call to ignore the one’s pretense of wanting to argue in good faith when there is nothing of the sort, is good advice.

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    Nah I’m wrong just as often as most people. Although at places like this I try harder not to be wrong (sometimes by qualifying my statements) because of the obvious ramifications.

    Anyway, I guess this one is over. But I did love the fact that a conservative distrusted the science about how conservatives don’t trust science. I guess he’d respond: “No, this is a good example of why we don’t necessarily trust the scientists”.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Kimpost

    I don’t know if it’s just me, but I think that this is turning into something ugly and personal. Come to think about it, “turning into” is an understatement, we’ve been there for quite some time already. Let’s be honest and acknowledge that every single person here gets away with stuff CM couldn’t dream of getting away with. The major annoyance factor about the guy, is AFAIK his comment frequency, coupled of course with his liberal views.

    Over the years I have come to know CM. No, we have not had sex or anything, but we have chatted, we have exchanged PM’s and we are Facebook friends. He’s not an antagonistic arsehole. He’s genuinely interested in politics, and his comments stem from that interest. I have never come across anything resembling any kind of “let’s flood the fuckers at RT”-attitude in him. Sometimes he gets frustrated and pissed, like everyone else, but there’s nothing extreme about it.

    JimK, even when you get into an argument with someone else, you still feel the need to throw in how CM apparently is…

    […] a fucking asshole who pretends to be this intelligent, civil person.

    And with no response from CM, Alex gets away with totally unwarranted WTF-comments like:

    Once I realized I was dealing with a con man I used to think it was the noble thing to take the fight to his bullshit too.

    I mean, come on. We are all intelligent people here, where the important word is “people”, as in fellow human beings. Could we tone down some of the “fuck everything, I’m anonymous anyway because this is just Internet”-abuse, please. It’s just not very appealing.

    Thumb up 2