Not really putting words in your mouth, just trying to make sense of what you said in context of the post. It turned out to be pretty, well, normal. You’re mentioning reasons that will allow you to say global warming isn’t happening, not trying to evaluate claims of global warming, in general, using this heuristic.
To explain the comment about “putting words in my mouth”: my comment relating the activities of the CRU to the subject of Konkvistador’s post was to the effect that the CRU is unwilling to share data, even when it is legally obliged to do so; there is debate regarding whether this is acceptable scientific practice; and that here we have concrete evidence that failure to share data is related to bad science; therefore, in light of this finding everyone (AGW-credulist or skeptic) should take a dimmer view of the CRU’s opacity.
From the credulist point of view, it might appear that the CRU has problems with quality control, which they are trying to shield from view – perhaps their work on paleoclimatology should be handed over to the Met office, for example. This is compatible with the idea that they are right about AGW in general but CRUTEM is a mess, or even that the problems with CRUTEM are not too severe but they should be doing better.
From the skeptic (or fence-sitting) view, this is more evidence that the CRU are pseudo-scientists in general. The fact that NASA agree in general with the CRU on AGW, and NASA happen to share data, doesn’t exonerate the CRU; there are plenty of ways to lie and mislead that do not involve failing to share data, so the fact that NASA is more transparent is no guarantee that their and the University of East Anglia’s conclusions on AGW are sound in general.
Your comment implied that I had claimed that the CRU’s conclusions were necessarily wrong, because they don’t share their data; and that NASA’s conclusions in general are necessarily right, because they do share data.
This is a non-sequitur on both counts. What makes this objectionable is that you supplied no reasoning beyond a mere statement, as though these conclusions followed trivially from what I had said. This is a rhetorical technique designed to score points, rather than something I would expect from a valuable debating partner – a suitable description of this style of commenting is “putting words into someone’s mouth”, and I think that the best way of dealing with it is to refer to it directly, so as to dissociate oneself from the non-sequitur.
The hyperbole of my original reply was shorthand for “is evidence for,” and I’m sorry if me doing that derailed the topic a bit by miscommunicating. The purpose of my reply was so I could get a better idea whether you were assessing claims of global warming using the tool referred to in the post (“the more reluctant that scientists were to share their data, the more likely that evidence contradicted their reported findings.”), or whether you were making a related but not-covered-by-the-post argument about how CRU wasn’t doing science. Your replies indicated that you were doing the latter.
Not really putting words in your mouth, just trying to make sense of what you said in context of the post. It turned out to be pretty, well, normal. You’re mentioning reasons that will allow you to say global warming isn’t happening, not trying to evaluate claims of global warming, in general, using this heuristic.
To explain the comment about “putting words in my mouth”: my comment relating the activities of the CRU to the subject of Konkvistador’s post was to the effect that the CRU is unwilling to share data, even when it is legally obliged to do so; there is debate regarding whether this is acceptable scientific practice; and that here we have concrete evidence that failure to share data is related to bad science; therefore, in light of this finding everyone (AGW-credulist or skeptic) should take a dimmer view of the CRU’s opacity.
From the credulist point of view, it might appear that the CRU has problems with quality control, which they are trying to shield from view – perhaps their work on paleoclimatology should be handed over to the Met office, for example. This is compatible with the idea that they are right about AGW in general but CRUTEM is a mess, or even that the problems with CRUTEM are not too severe but they should be doing better.
From the skeptic (or fence-sitting) view, this is more evidence that the CRU are pseudo-scientists in general. The fact that NASA agree in general with the CRU on AGW, and NASA happen to share data, doesn’t exonerate the CRU; there are plenty of ways to lie and mislead that do not involve failing to share data, so the fact that NASA is more transparent is no guarantee that their and the University of East Anglia’s conclusions on AGW are sound in general.
Your comment implied that I had claimed that the CRU’s conclusions were necessarily wrong, because they don’t share their data; and that NASA’s conclusions in general are necessarily right, because they do share data.
This is a non-sequitur on both counts. What makes this objectionable is that you supplied no reasoning beyond a mere statement, as though these conclusions followed trivially from what I had said. This is a rhetorical technique designed to score points, rather than something I would expect from a valuable debating partner – a suitable description of this style of commenting is “putting words into someone’s mouth”, and I think that the best way of dealing with it is to refer to it directly, so as to dissociate oneself from the non-sequitur.
The hyperbole of my original reply was shorthand for “is evidence for,” and I’m sorry if me doing that derailed the topic a bit by miscommunicating. The purpose of my reply was so I could get a better idea whether you were assessing claims of global warming using the tool referred to in the post (“the more reluctant that scientists were to share their data, the more likely that evidence contradicted their reported findings.”), or whether you were making a related but not-covered-by-the-post argument about how CRU wasn’t doing science. Your replies indicated that you were doing the latter.