What would you call this kind of behavior?
A certain individual asked a "question" the other day about FSU grad student Ryan Maue’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) data. He asked for an explanation why Maue’s data is at a 30 year low while hurricane intensity is supposed to be increasing.
I had previously asked a question about this, because Maue’s data contradicts NOAA’s data. I explained in my answer the discrepancy, and that Maue has written a paper attempting to reconcile the differences between his and NOAA’s ACE data, but it hasn’t yet been published. In other words, the individual’s question can’t be answered until this paper is published.
The individual in question said I have "an excuse for everything" and was "attacking the author [Maue]", then chose a "best answer" which didn’t really answer the question, provided zero scientific evidence, and was really nothing more than an ad hominem attack against "alarmists".
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AraW4CLQnL.tOcsPnJp.8y4S.Rd.;_ylv=3?qid=20091101063014AA1VScJ
Clearly no matter what the explanation was, this individual was going to blindly accept Maue’s data because it showed him what he wanted to see - an apparent contradiction with AGW.
I know certain people object to the term "denier", but how else would you define this kind of behavior other than denial?
Tagged with: ace data • ad hominem attack • agw • alarmists • amp • apparent contradiction • cyclone • denial • denier • discrepancy • excuse • fsu • grad student • hurricane intensity • maue • qid • question index • yahoo
Filed under: Hurricane Questions
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
‘What would you call this kind of behaviour?’
The behaviour is attrocious. Your behaviour is attrocious Dana. I believe that this question is very unkind and you are better than this.
A simple factual explanation would have been much better, even if it was only to state that ‘the individuals question can’t be answered until this paper is published’ and a promise to answer when you DO have sight of the relevant papers.
You have done a fantastic job giving current research and trying to discuss that research. For that you deserve a pat on the back. However, the next time you decide to ask a question like this Stop! for a few minutes and think of the wider audience that read but don’t answer your questions.
Give the truth, evidences, links, less opinions, more truths, explanations and even more facts if that is needed to help people understand the truths. Some people don’t understand as easily as others, but do understand eventually if the teacher is patient and consistent. If you ridicule them, like in this question, they will just stop listening as will many who read but don’t answer.
Stop ranting, return to informing.
a very stupid one
Look, be kind. He admitted he’s a "redneck" which in common parlance refers to someone in a small town or agricultural area with no formal education. I think few if any of the regular deniers on this forum have formal education, though some do. People have great difficulty understanding the scientific processes and how conflicts in scientific studies get worked out. Few have have even read journals or even understand why they are so important. But the thing that amazes me about how stubborn-minded some people are, is that they will cite an expert as proof as though they believe the expert is someone credible, but then when it is pointed out that the expert is warning them that AGW is real they don’t admit to changing their understanding. You would think they’d at least be curious about why a guy like Maue is so certain AGW is real.
I personally don’t agree with your answer that just because Maue is still pursuing his PHD his work lacks credibility. A great amount of scientific progress has been accomplished by grad students. But everyone should understand that Maue does not question the established belief in AGW, he just is reporting that hurricanes might not be affected in ways that the majority believe. The theory is well accepted, but observations are sketchy. Even over 30 years, hurricanes do not present enough data points to establish a significantly reliable trend.
Wasn’t it you that looked at the same ACE then NOAA’s and could not figure out why the two were different? Don’t put others down, it was you who was looking for something that was not there in that case, and you did not bother reading data and methods. Shame shame, another blotch on "scientists". Keep it up though, you and the other activists have convinced another 20% of the nation AGW is nothing to worry about.
Maybe the "theory" that warmer temperatures causes more frequent and intense hurricanes is not fully supported. I can understand why you would be sensitive to this because increased hurricane damage is a primary scare threat to mobilize the masses.
And, clearly, you’re going to blindly accept the version of truth that agrees with your preconceived notions… you always do, even when you’re clearly wrong.
Atlantic ACE is at an almost all time low. There have been a few tropical storms, but only two hurricanes this year…Bill and Fred. When the hurricane season ends on November 30 we are on track for the quietest hurricane season in history unless they start developing through this month. The Atlantic is too cold to generate many hurricanes this year.
This is important, and contradicts the predictions from the alarmist camp. Just where are all those hurricanes that Gore predicted? This is clearly another area where the doomsayers got it wrong.
I think you should publicly reveal any subsidies, awards, prizes, grants, salary, or consulting fees that you are getting from Big Coal, the coal industry, the clean coal movement, or organizations like the coal producers if there are any such subsidies, salary, or fees.
That would help clear the air.
We like clean air, and cool air.