Climate Scientist To CEI: Stop Misrepresenting My Research

The "bastard" didn't decide what his results meant. There was a prediction out there as to what would be observed as a result of global warming, and this guys research confirmed the prediction.

If you want to draw your own conclusions from his research, the honest thing to do is acknowledge that your conclusions are at odds with the existing consensus and explain why.

K.Hodge: do you also believe in Intelligent Falling?

No, it definitely is not valid. You are obviously not a scientist. Scientific research is very carefully and meticulously performed. To take some of the results out of the context of the entire research effort is scientifically meaningless. It is politically significant, however, as propaganda.

He didn't confirm any prediction. All he confirmed was that the East Antarctic ice sheet is growing in the interior. His research did not confirm that this is what would happen when global warming occurs. You can't just say, this is what will happen when global warming occurs, prove that this is what is occuring and then say that it is a confirmation of global warming.

lll - just because you didn't call me Stupid in so many words doesn't mean your comment isn't inappropriate. How about this.... do you believe that you actually contributed to this thread? because if you did, i'd call that intelligence failing.

Brad Farris, to claim objectivity is to claim that you have no opinion on the matter. I sincerely doubt you have no opinion on the matter, and thus have no objectivity on the matter either.

ByronSnake, thanks for pointing out that I am not a scientist. This "scientist" in question is actually an Engineering proffesor.... not a scientist. Scientific research may be very carefully and meticulously performed, but it has been wrong or faked on MANY occasions. Stem Cells? I've never actually seen the advertisment in question, all I said was that from the article it sounds not like they were Misrepresenting his research, it sounds like they just took his actual research and came up with their own conclusions.

He didn't confirm any prediction.

Read the article.

"...the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that if global warming were occurring, increased precipitation in Antarctica's interior would likely result. In his study, Davis reported growth in interior East Antarctica. He said this growth was probably caused by an increase in precipitation."

So, his study lends credence to the hypothesis that global warming is occurring.

Is it proof of global warming? No.

Is it suggestive of global warming? Yes.

Is it a misrepresentation to claim his study shows that global warming is not happening? Absolutely.

to claim objectivity is to claim that you have no opinion on the matter

No.

To be objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". There is a difference.

his study lends credence

He didn't confirm any prediction.

Regardless if it is suggestive or not. Its not fact until its fact. If he'd shown that this was caused by an increase in precipitation which was a direct result of the earth heating up, then they would not have been able to "misrepresent his data". Even though they aren't misrepresenting it.... they are misrepresenting other people's data by using his data.

The point isn't whether his conclusions are "fact". The point is that CEI are implying that his study supports their claim that the icecaps aren't shrinking.

that wasn't my point.

By the way, i'd like to thank everyone else who jumped on the I'm an idiot bandwagon, and voted the comment enough times to get a star.

that wasn't my point.

Are you being misrepresented? I think not.

In the very first comment on this article, you claimed that the CEI wasn't misrepresenting anything. It is cleat that they are. Do you disagree?

Yes i disagree. I've said that i've never seen the commercials(or at least hadn't at the time) so how I am supposed to know if they were or weren't misrepresenting anything? Its not clear that they are because you haven't seen his research, and from just reading the article it doesn't sound like any of his research is being misrepresented.

lll - just because you didn't call me Stupid in so many words doesn't mean your comment isn't inappropriate. How about this.... do you believe that you actually contributed to this thread? because if you did, i'd call that intelligence failing.

Yes, I believe I contributed.

1) I contributed a legitimate question: do you believe in Intelligent Falling. It is a legitimate question since you do not seem to have much understanding of science; and I wanted to confirm.

2) It was funny.

3) It did not call you stupid; you called yourself so. That word did not cross my mind. And by calling a very well-known scientist a "bastard" without the background to do so, you are already extremely disrespectful. Just giving you some of your own medicine.

I've said that i've never seen the commercials(or at least hadn't at the time) so how I am supposed to know if they were or weren't misrepresenting anything?

And yet you came charging out with the claim that the CEI wasn't anything. What's up with that?

Its not clear that they are because you haven't seen his research...

Yes I have. It's all over the web. Google is your friend.

nd from just reading the article it doesn't sound like any of his research is being misrepresented.

Funny, that's not the impression I got. Further (easy to do) research confirmed it.

1) I contributed a legitimate question: do you believe in Intelligent Falling. It is a legitimate question since you do not seem to have much understanding of science; and I wanted to confirm.

Is my understanding of science, or lack there of if that's how you'd prefer to put it, what this topic is about, is Intelligent Falling what this topic is about? No. Thanks for coming out big shot.

2) It was funny.

You may think its funny to insult other people's intelligence, but then again you'd probably be the kind of person to think that playing Dungeons and Dragons is a valuable use of your time.

3) It did not call you stupid; you called yourself so. That word did not cross my mind.

Apparently you have trouble with the phrase "Just because you didn't call me Stupid in so many words doesn't mean your comment isn't inappropriate." Maybe you should take all of this time that you put into your funny comments, and spend it learning how to read properly?

And by calling a very well-known scientist a "bastard" without the background to do so, you are already extremely disrespectful. Just giving you some of your own medicine.

This very-well known scientist isn't a scientist, he's an engineering professor. And for your information, I can bloody well call anyone a bastard without any background, not that you have any idea what my background is, do you? I think its funny that you find me "already extremely disrespectful" when you have been nothing but the same. Two wrongs don't make a right? As for giving me some of my own medicine, that might actually be the first valid statement you've made.... except for the fact that i didn't use the word bastard until after you made your decidedly unoriginal point that I must be an idiot.

Thanks again for contributing nothing to this thread.

murat, if you have a link to his research, i'd love to see it, please post a link. Thanks.

Is my understanding of science, or lack there of if that's how you'd prefer to put it, what this topic is about, is Intelligent Falling what this topic is about?No. Thanks for coming out big shot.

Judging from your comment about a Professor being a bastard, it was mighty obvious. In fact, your comment got "collapsed"...talk about having "no value".

You may think its funny to insult other people's intelligence, but then again you'd probably be the kind of person to think that playing Dungeons and Dragons is a valuable use of your time.

No idea how you got the D&D idea, that's really interesting. Your educated guess is certainly interesting; but it needs serious adjustment.

Apparently you have trouble with the phrase "Just because you didn't call me Stupid in so many words doesn't mean your comment isn't inappropriate." Maybe you should take all of this time that you put into your funny comments, and spend it learning how to read properly?

Thanks! I will!

This very-well known scientist isn't a scientist, he's an engineering professor. And for your information, I can bloody well call anyone a bastard without any background, not that you have any idea what my background is, do you?

Yes, feel free to call anyone bastard. I have no problem with that. Don't get all defensive when others call you disrespectful then. If you have any decent background, you would have the decency to argue by points, other than adjectives.

With all due respect, as an engineering lecturer myself, Professor Davis is a scientist who works in the ICREST. Engineering researchers, including myself, often involve in environmental and other areas of research. After all, these researches require use of equipment (mostly for measurement) made with the latest of engineering technologies, often custom-made at the top research universities. I guess you really have no idea. And I would love to know your background, so I will not under-estimate you again.

I think its funny that you find me "already extremely disrespectful" when you have been nothing but the same. Two wrongs don't make a right? As for giving me some of my own medicine, that might actually be the first valid statement you've made.... except for the fact that i didn't use the word bastard until after you made your decidedly unoriginal point that I must be an idiot.

Let's check the time stamps. You called Prof. Davis a bastard at 3am May 21st. I posted my first response at 5am on the same day. Who wrote first? Need a shovel?

I am done with this. You are not worth more of my heartbeats.

Oh. Knock yourself out:

Prof Davis's Journal paper list

Prof Davis's papers - available on Google Scholar

So far what i've found from the second link you gave me is this.

nowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise
Curt H. Davis,1* Yonghong Li,1 Joseph R. McConnell,2 Markus M. Frey,3 Edward Hanna4

Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.

1 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
2 Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System of Nevada, Reno, NV 89512, USA.
3 Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
4 Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

nothing else on Antarctica yet... this really wouldn't prove his case.

Judging from your comment about a Professor being a bastard, it was mighty obvious. In fact, your comment got "collapsed"...talk about having "no value".

Maybe because you decided to respond?

No idea how you got the D&D idea, that's really interesting. Your educated guess is certainly interesting; but it needs serious adjustment.

Because the only people I know who'd go online to make a quip like the one you made is the kind of person that plays dungeons and dragons and gets a real hard on going onto the internet and adding useless little comments to make themselves feel just a little bit better about playing dungeons and dragons all day long. You seem like a fairly bright individual... or at least one who works hard, if you got through engineering. But just because you're someones ta, doesn't make you queen of the @!$%#ing world.

I didn't get called disrespectful.. you asked me do i think i am an idiot. Not even called me an idiot, asked me if i was an idiot.

If you have any decent background, you would have the decency to argue by points, other than adjectives.

I've argued points throughout this whole topic. The only adjective any one has had any problem with is BASTARD. Which really, in this day and age should be the least of people's worries.

My background is in computer science and mathematics.

Let's check the time stamps. You called Prof. Davis a bastard at 3am May 21st. I posted my first response at 5am on the same day.

Yah i was wrong about that one, the collapse box threw me off. oh well. i guess you made a valid statement hahahaha.

thanks for the links...... and actually contributing to the thread.

nothing else on Antarctica yet... this really wouldn't prove his case.

He's not required to "prove" a case; that's not how science works. He's presenting the results of his research and suggesting how his results comport with existing hypotheses. His observations are consistent with predictions made by others.