[QUOTE=Trainwreck;6323393]

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Unfortunately for you, you are speaking from a basic ignorance of the topic.

There is a philosophical difference among statisticians about the correct use of prior distributions in Bayesian statistics. QUOTE]

You really need to read the links properly. Little disagreement exists on this issue at hand.

Exactly as I said ... there is a difference of opinion. Are you claiming the person you quoted is the ultimate authority on the matter?

I hope not. You are the first to attack "arguments from authority" yourself.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Well that let's part-time NASA, NOAA or UK Met Office employees like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt off the hook ...

... and I don't see why being a career academic should be so important in climate science, and not in any other discipline.

It means that you don't need a "conspiracy" for large amounts of people - event "experts" - to be wrong about something and to suffer collective cognative disonnance.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

[
Exactly as I said ... there is a difference of opinion.

But - most notably - not on the issue at hand. Will you ever admit to anything?


I reckon if Steve, Earthling and I started posted how the Earth is going to warm by 4-6 degrees due to human caused CO2 emissions you would start arguing we were wrong and that there was no proof of anything.

Good news of an eminent scientist justly rewarded.

Deniers must regret the day they picked on Michael Mann to attack. Adversity just made the guy tougher, and now he is a real public figure with an extensive public speaking schedule, for which he is earning pretty hefty fees!

But besides that, the good news is that Pennsylvania State University has made Michael Mann a Distinguished Professor in its College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

I am sure you will join me in congratulating Professor Mann.

Congratulations to Michael Mann – Greg Laden's Blog

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

But - most notably - not on the issue at hand. Will you ever admit to anything?


I reckon if Steve, Earthling and I started posted how the Earth is going to warm by 4-6 degrees due to human caused CO2 emissions you would start arguing we were wrong and that there was no proof of anything.

Try showing me the evidence.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Well that let's part-time NASA, NOAA or UK Met Office employees like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt off the hook ...

... and I don't see why being a career academic should be so important in climate science, and not in any other discipline.

Because climate change denial websites like "bishop-hill" say so...

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

It means that you don't need a "conspiracy" for large amounts of people - event "experts" - to be wrong about something and to suffer collective cognative disonnance.

Science is a collective, and so are all the academics.

Internal academic politics are cutthroat, I agree 100%, it makes me happy I never became an academic. I have been shocked at the pettiness and vindictive in-fighting of some academics I have encountered. Professor Joe Lee spent a year in the Senate, and said that after College politics, national politics was a dawdle.

But you can bet that if Academic A in College X publishes something innovative or controversial, well then Academic B in College Y will be the first to try to make his reputation by proving Academic A wrong. Academic A may be master of his own little dunghill, but he cannot be master of all the dunghills, especially the ones in other countries.

Just like capitalism or Darwinism, there is an "invisible hand" that keeps science on the straight and narrow. Because academics and scientists are too fractious or too ambitious to sing from the same hymnsheet for long. Academic B (particularly if he is young, ambitious and arrogant) will want to take Academic A's scalp and make his reputation.

Of course, one occasion science had been temporarily subverted ... but ultimately science does win. The Piltdown Man hoax was the best example of that. It was a hoax that fooled scientists for years, but ultimately the people who proved it was a hoax were not journalists but scientists, too.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Try showing me the evidence.

The evidence of your attitude is right here to read.


It is known and agreed that use of uniform (flat) priors for certain climate sensitivity calculations induces an upward bias in the results. James Annan agrees with that according to a comment on RealClimate, as do the different schools of Bayesian statisticians.

There is an extensive list of published papers that are subject to this error, including the influential Forrester paper.

However, you still are persisting over pages of this thread to deny it. And deny it. And deny it.

I swear I would suffer some sort of turn if you simply said, "on reflection, yes you are right. There appears to be a problem with this class of climate sensitivity papers".

Thankfully I don't think that will happen ever.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Science is a collective, and so are all the academics.

Agreed!!!!

Wo betide those who don't want to live in the collective.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

The evidence of your attitude is right here to read.


It is known and agreed that use of uniform (flat) priors for certain climate sensitivity calculations induces an upward bias in the results. James Annan agrees with that according to a comment on RealClimate, as do the different schools of Bayesian statisticians.

There is an extensive list of published papers that are subject to this error, including the influential Forrester paper.

However, you still are persisting over pages of this thread to deny it. And deny it. And deny it.

I swear I would suffer some sort of turn if you simply said, "on reflection, yes you are right. There appears to be a problem with this class of climate sensitivity papers".

Thankfully I don't think that will happen ever.

You are presenting an opinion. Many would have a different opinion. Shrug.

Point me the schools of Bayesian statisticians you are talking about and I will gladly read what they have to say. Or to the conversation on RealClimate which I could not find.

But don't expect me to take your word for it.

PS Here is a discussion between Annan and Andrew Gelman, a leading Bayesian statistician, about non-informative priors. There does not appear to be agreement.

http://andrewgelman.com/2007/07/informative_and/