The New Scientist (“new” in most magazine titles meaning “socialist”) has yet another whole issue aimed at slamming climate skeptics. You might start to think they felt threatened or something.
I found the cover hugely ironic:
The implication I guess is that climate skeptics are somehow trying to silence real scientists. This is enormously ironic. With a couple of exceptions, including the unfortunate legal crusade by the Virginia AG against Michael Mann, it is climate alarmists rather than skeptics who have generally taken the position that the other side of the debate needs to be silenced.
By the way, as I said in the intro to my last video, I have chosen to embrace the title of denier – with one proviso. Being a denier implies that one is denying some kind of proposition, so I am sure thoughtful people would agree that it is important to be clear on the proposition that is being denied. For example, I always found the term “climate denier” to be hilarious. You mean there are folks who deny there is a climate?
I don’t deny that climate changes – it changes all the time. I don’t deny there is global warming – global temperatures are higher today than they were in 1900, just as they were higher in 1200 AD than they were in 900. I don’t even deny that man is contributing somewhat to the warming, not just from CO2 but from effects like changes in land use. What I deny is the catastrophe — that man’s actions are leading to catastrophic changes in the climate. I believe many scientists have grossly over-estimated the sensitivity of temperatures to CO2 by grossly overestimating the net positive feedback in the climate system. And I think much of the work assigning consequences to even small increases in global temperatures – from tornadoes to hurricanes to lizard extinction – is frankly crap. While I think the first mistake (around sensitivity) is an honest error, some day scientists will look back on the horrendous “science” of the consequences of warming and be ashamed.
It strikes me that a real scientific magazine that was actually seeking truth would, if it wanted to dedicate a whole issue to the climate debate, actually create a print debate between skeptics and alarmists to educate its readers. If the alarmist case is so obvious, and its readers so smugly superior in their intellect, surely this would be the most powerful possible way to debunk skeptics. Instead, the New Scientist chose, in a phrase I saw the other day and loved, to take a flamethrower to a field of straw men.
For those who want to watch the straw men go up in smoke, The Reference Frame has an index to the articles in this issue.
Dougster,
you say: ‘But we do need totally independent watchdogs – not interchangeable Poachers/Gamekeepers.
care to elaborate?
And who is this ‘ultimate peer group’? Why are they ‘ultimate’?
More playing dumb…
“Could you be specific about which scientists and which challenges you are posting about? Let’s take a look at where you get your info from.” – Waldoe
I don’t think I referenced a particular “scientist” or challenge. The problem with the CAGW hoax is where to start. It’s pretty ridiculous from top to bottom. My favourites are usually the oft-debunked outlandish catastrophic predictions.
The IPCC’s myriad scandals are well documented. Just look them up. They’re probably EVEN chronicled beyond the so-called ‘deniosphere’.
I think this little comment got overlooked.
****”We want the correct answer, not the popular answer.”
How do you know you haven’t already got the “correct answer,” Wally?
How do you know that Pielke and Lindzen are not providing you with a different sort of “popular answer”? Or, more precisely, do you think the Lindzens of the world are providing an answer that is more “popular” with a very different demographic which you fall into?
And Dougie, I’m willing to bet you will not believe anyone – “independent watchdog” or not – unless they want to hang and quarter climate change scientists – then, I’m willing to bet, you’d be satisfied.
Shills says:-
“Dougster,
you say: ‘But we do need totally independent watchdogs – not interchangeable Poachers/Gamekeepers.
care to elaborate?
And who is this ‘ultimate peer group’? Why are they ‘ultimate’?
1) – the simplistic investigation into Climategate has so far been the typical whitewash. Even before it had started one member of the panel had to resign because he was so overtly alarmist! And then we had revelations about other members of the panel. So what we need is an unbiased approach – not the same group of alarmists propping up a viewpoint that is under increasing pressure – and quite rightly so.
2) – the ultimate peer group – (my goodness – not very well read are you shillyboy ;0)) – your peers – my peers – there peers – everyones peers. In other words the populace in general.
The alarmists need popular support and now that the bubble has burst the “populace” will be looking long and hard at those that say “Trust me – I am a Climate Scientist!”
Oh good grief – Waldstrict is “willing to bet”.
The last gasp of the charlatan – I have no evidence – but I just know etc etc. – well you would lose.
Grow up please guys – we are not into betting here – I am not interested in your willingness to wager – The IPCC may wish us all to hell on a SUV because they see it as being “most likely” (at 90% not the more usual 95%)
So who wants to bet?
Charlatans – that’s who.
Shills,
“it is relevant to my point. In terms of how the public interpret these things. Which is all I was ever talking about. ”
Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.
“Hmm, nah. I think it would be obvious to just about anyone who compared Meyer’s stuff to a proper essay.”
Ok, so you’re just spewing hot air.
“I don’t feel the need to ref. stuff which is prob. common knowledge to most peeps keeping up with the stuff, esp. like you.”
Probably? So if its only “probably common knowledge,” you need to reference it. Most people know cancer is the biggest killer of old people, or cardiovascular diseases over all, or lung cancer is the largest “preventable” killer, etc., but you still reference facts like those, particularly when questioned. If your argument relies on a fact of some kind (and basically all arguments do), you have prove the fact is actually true, otherwise your entire argument is invalid.
Waldo,
“How do you know you haven’t already got the “correct answer,” Wally?”
I likely already have, yes. But I don’t think its the one you’d like…
“How do you know that Pielke and Lindzen are not providing you with a different sort of “popular answer”? Or, more precisely, do you think the Lindzens of the world are providing an answer that is more “popular” with a very different demographic which you fall into?”
Oh, boy, so now you’re suggesting that I believe Pielke or Lindzen because I fall into some “demographic?” As if to insinuate my race, nation of origin, religion, age, political beliefs, or what ever other demographic categories you want to bring up, influence my ability to logically, rationally and fairly review the evidence at hand and critique it? This is your argument? Please, go look up logical fallacies and give them a thorough read. After all, why couldn’t I just pose similar idiotic leading questions to you?
You know what, on second thought, you’re totally right. I believe evolution because I’m a a white catholic. I also believe relativity because I’m in the all important 18-35 age group and married. Isn’t it obvious how my “demographics” in those areas have lead me to believe certain scientific theories….gosh, you’re so right waldo….
I’d feel sorry for you waldo, if I didn’t think you’re doing this largely because you just want to put us on, oh and also if I wasn’t of Irish decent. HAHA, keep it up, you make me laugh.
****”I likely already have, yes. But I don’t think its the one you’d like…”
Oh Wally, Wally, Wally – arrogant much? And the answer(s) I’d like is that the Earth’s natural cycles include warming and cooling trends and that we are in the midst of a warming trend, that humans are not responsible for screwing up yet another aspect of the environment, and that we can all sit back and bask in the glow of another relatively fertile age which will make us healthy, wealthy and wise. You see, Wally, I do not want climate change to unnaturally affect planetary health. I know that you insist on seeing the world in strict demographics, for and against, but it does not work that way for me.
I would also like to believe that Santa Claus is coming in July, that Elvis is alive, that Price Charles will pay off my student loans, and that the oil spill in the Gulf is going to magically disappear. But I do not believe in things simply because I want to. That is the defining feature of your demographic.
I do not know if the topic we debate endlessly is occurring or not – but I would prefer to leave this argument to the scientists who might know about such things.
So, the question is really, why should I believe your answer? There are far, far more qualified people who have a different answer. Whether or not it’s the one I would like is another story.
****”so now you’re suggesting that I believe Pielke or Lindzen because I fall into some ‘demographic?'”
Yup. That is precisely correct. I wasn’t thinking of the factors you mention above, but I believe you fall into a category of personality that, for whatever reason, thinks a certain way.
***”my ability to logically, rationally and fairly review the evidence at hand and critique it”
By the way, I don’t believe you do these things. In fact, it seems patently obvious that you do not.
***”The problem with the CAGW hoax is where to start. It’s pretty ridiculous from top to bottom. My favourites are usually the oft-debunked outlandish catastrophic predictions.”
Okay, let’s just start with your favorite two – how’s that?
****”The IPCC’s myriad scandals are well documented. Just look them up. They’re probably EVEN chronicled beyond the so-called ‘deniosphere’.”
Oh yes, I’ve been doing this very thing for several months now at CS. And no, these so called “myriad scandals” exist almost exclusively on blogs or in questionable media sources – the deniosphere, in other words.
Waldo,
You sound up set, what’s the matter poor boy? Don’t like your idiocy providing humor?
“I believe you fall into a category of personality that, for whatever reason, thinks a certain way.”
Yeah, you’re right. I fairly and rationally review evidence before determining my opinion (and I know how you hate that, you’d rather we just blindly follow the “consensus”). But I’ve never heard of someone using a personality type as a demographic. Between your endless logical fallacies, personal attacks and out right sloppiness with the English language I find it surprising you have mental capacity to get out of bed and turn on a computer, much less actually use it. I guess it speak volumes for the guys at microsoft and apple for making these amazing machines easy to use.
Anyway, keep telling us all what your little brain has come up with, it is amusing.
Oh and this has to be the best part:
“You see, Wally, I do not want climate change to unnaturally affect planetary health. I know that you insist on seeing the world in strict demographics, for and against, but it does not work that way for me.”
Coming from the guy that is trying to pigeon hole me into some vague personality type “demographic” that is being exploited by Pielke and Lindzen? Oh the irony…and no I don’t really expect you to understand the irony.
Haha, did it occur to you, you may be the type of “demographic” that Jones, Mann, and Gore are trying to appeal to? You know, stupid people…haha, I can’t help but laugh at you anymore Waldo. I’ve entertained your idiocy for far too long.
Waldo, You’re either a paid Astro-turfer or the most obtuse Klimate Kool-Aid partaker that I’ve ever encountered. Your basic premise that CAGW scepticism is exclusive to a few blogs is beyond ludicrous. The CAGW hoax has got to be one of the most beleaguered “scientific” theories ever. The only thing that keeps this ridiculous proposition afloat is the insatiable greed for money and power that is the hallmark of the Int’l left and their “environmental” fellow travelers. The (I hesitate to call it) “scientific” theory of CAGW has been assailed by everyone from MIT professors on dowm from the outset.
“Okay, let’s just start with your favorite two [outlandish predictions] – how’s that?
Perhaps later… There are so many. Pretty much everything imaginable has been blamed on GW. You’d think that you would know that.
“myriad scandals” exist almost exclusively on blogs or in questionable media sources – the deniosphere, in other words.” – Waldoe
Talk about “denial”… You’re right to presume that the MSM attempt to suppress most IPCC criticism, but do to the sheer volume some gets out. Here is a sampling.
IPCC’s Himalayan Glacier ‘Mistake’ No Accident
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/25/ipccs-himalayan-glacier-mistake-no-accident
Can the IPCC’s 2007 report stink any higher?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_ipcc_scandals_yet_another_coverup
The UN’s climate change panel is reeling from a series of scandals about unsupported claims in its 2007 report.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20010
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
Waldowhateverwhoeverwhocares? – says
“Oh yes, I’ve been doing this very thing for several months now at CS. And no, these so called “myriad scandals” exist almost exclusively on blogs or in questionable media sources – the deniosphere, in other words.”
Now you know that is not true – the “questioning media” is up for a showdown – the “unquestioning media” wants the status quo. And how typically puerile is the reference to the “denisphere”. The alarmists just do not get it do they?
Have a guess who the sharks of the media will turn on when they scent blood?
It is only a matter of time.
But it won’t be pretty – rats leaving sinking ships is never an edifying sight.
***”Between your endless logical fallacies, personal attacks and out right sloppiness with the English language I find it surprising you have mental capacity to get out of bed and turn on a computer, much less actually use it.”
And I’m the one who sounds upset, is illogical, and hurling personal attacks? I’ve said it before Wally, whenever I get this level of diction from you (which is not your usual persona) I know I’ve touched a nerve.
For my own part, I never get upset about anything posted on CS. At least not yet. I figure it’s a matter of my cool logic vs. your excitable bias (a little humor, son, don’t twist your knickers).
In all seriousness though, I do think you are a personality type and you probably do fit into a political demographic (and your comments sometimes accidentally betray this.
These personal affronts are getting tiring, however. The thread is dead. Long live the thread!
Oh waldo,
“And I’m the one who sounds upset, is illogical, and hurling personal attacks? I’ve said it before Wally, whenever I get this level of diction from you (which is not your usual persona) I know I’ve touched a nerve.”
Ah yes, you think you’ve touch a nerve…. Just letting you know just what kind of behavior you’re engaging in and how other perceive you because of that behavior. Meaning, yes, you act like fool, people will think you’re a fool.
There reaches a certain point in arguing with fools that you might as well just stop acting as if their goal is have a logical and civil discussion. So, I’m poking you and watching your pathetic comebacks because I don’t have anything better to do today.
“In all seriousness though, I do think you are a personality type and you probably do fit into a political demographic (and your comments sometimes accidentally betray this.”
WOW, I have a personality type? What types of personalities are their exactly? So I assume you have some sort of higher degree in psychology that would allow you speak to such matters, as well? And I probably fit into a political demographic? Probably? Into any kind of political demographic? Way to go out on a limb Waldo…
Other than the information I’ve freely given you, I doubt you’d guess my demographic information at anything better than a random rate. Assuming of course, that I wasn’t lying about some of those above. Though since you have such a profound insight into my “personality type” and demographic, you should be able to pick those up. So by all means, try and guess. This should be fun! Lets watch Waldo tell me everything I need to know about myself. I know you want to. You’ve already tried a few times…
Dougster,
for 1). Hmm. not sure if your interpretations shared by most. Where are you reading up on these revelations?
for 2). Cute, Doug. But I think you miss the point of peer-review. Is this your imagined future of science and learning? Something like wikipedia? You should see what wiki has to say ’bout AGW (don’t bring up the wiki’s hijacked by an alarmist crap).
Wally:
you say: ‘Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.’
Pff. Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial.
You say: ‘Ok, so you’re just spewing hot air.
No worse than all these denier bloggers, so lacking in published peer-reviewed. But at least I’m on the winning side.
You say: ‘Most people know cancer is the biggest killer of old people, or cardiovascular diseases over all, or lung cancer is the largest “preventable” killer, etc’
I doubt they would know all that.
You say: ‘if your argument relies on a fact of some kind (and basically all arguments do), you have prove the fact is actually true, otherwise your entire argument is invalid.’
Not if its common knowledge or self evident in the given field.
Shills,
>you say: ‘Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.’
Pff. Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial. You say: ‘Most people know cancer is the biggest killer of old people, or cardiovascular diseases over all, or lung cancer is the largest “preventable” killer, etc’
I doubt they would know all that.<
Ah, so you'd want me to reference it? Hmm, well you should hold yourself to your own standards, hypocrite.
"Not if its common knowledge or self evident in the given field."
False. Logically, you have to prove every step of your argument. You can make an argument claiming something to be true, and your argument can be valid under the assumption that it is true. But a critic can argue that because that "fact" is not actually true, your entire argument is false. At which point you have to demonstrate the truth of your assumption. You can not just lean back on supposed common knowledge, if it is called into question. If you fail to demonstrate the truth of your assumption, no matter how trivial you believe that knowledge to be, the criticism stands and you've lost the argument. You are of course free to think differently in your own head and not rationally respond to criticisms, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument has been defeated.
Ie. I could argue:
All birds have wings.
All animals that have wings can fly.
Chickens have wings.
Thus, chickens can fly.
This is a logically valid argument, but it relies on a false premise, and is thus not true. All animals that have wings CANNOT fly. Effectively you're telling us that because "All animals that have wings can fly" is common knowledge, you don't have to prove it, and so your argument is still true. That is not a logical response to a criticism doubting the TRUTH of your argument. You have to be able to prove it, whether you believe something is common knowledge or not.
Shills,
>you say: ‘Ok, so if all you were talking about was numbers of people, and not the actual substance of the arguments, then your point is trivial.’
Pff. Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial. <
Public perception is tipping, and has been for a several years now. I don't think you're actually arguing about public perception. Or if you are, you are arguing from a position of ignorance: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx.
The link clearly shows the shifting public perception of the impact of climate change. 48% of people now believe the effects of climate change have been exaggerated, compared to 30% in 2000. Further that 48% likely makes up the majority, as you typically see more than 2% responding something to the effect of "I don't know." Further now 67% of people do not believe climate change will have serious effects during their lifetime. Also, the populous is split 50-46 split in responding the last century of warming is due to man vs. natural changes, respectively. That's down from 61-33 in 2003. And finally the populous is split 52-36-10 for most scientists believe global warming is occurring, most scientists are unsure if global warming is occurring and most scientists believe global warming is NOT occurring, and again respectively. Which is way down from just 2 years ago where it was 67-26-7.
As you can see public opinion is shifting very rapidly. And now a majority of people believe they will not see effects of global warming in their lifetime. Which is the result I'm most concerned with. Most reasonable people will agree warming has taken place, further they will agree man has impacted that warming to at least some extent. Also, man's activities are likely to cause the Earth to be at least somewhat warmer than it otherwise would be from natural forces in the future. What people are beginning to realize however, is that the extent of this warming and its effect has been greatly overstated.
So if this is the "facts" you're relying on to believe the public debate is not even, well, you're wrong.
Now that we've established this. How much does it really matter? I suppose it matters come election time. But again, I'd hope that our elected officials would be able to step away from doing the bidding of the mob and fairly evaluate the science and the need to respond in kind. So, again, I'd argue public perception is still not as important as getting the right answer.
"No worse than all these denier bloggers, so lacking in published peer-reviewed. But at least I’m on the winning side. "
What exactly makes you think you've won something?
Sorry for the double post, seems the page didn’t like the first part of my response. I trust you can figure it out shills.
Oh and the third line to my argument should be.
Chickens are birds. (and I suppose technically I need to state that birds are animals)
Or you could just take out the first premise.
I kinda changed my mind on the structure of my example half way through and didn’t fix it. Apologies.
Wally,
You say: ‘So if this is the “facts” you’re relying on to believe the public debate is not even, well, you’re wrong.’
I didn’t say the public debate was not even. I’m talking about the scientific debate being misconstrued by blogs and media which effect public perception, so that the public think it is even, when it is not.
I’m not gonna waist time linking you to evidence of this generally one sided debate. I still suspect you are being disingenuously pedantic. You can call all this hot air if you like, but I don’t really care. Maybe I would if I felt it was needed here, but really the science of AGW is still appears to be standing strong. Deniers and skeptics are still just waisting their time writing blogs or books, whilst pop. science publications and even an undergrad. lecture on experimental methodology I went to uses climate skeptics as examples of deniers.
That is kinda what I mean by ‘winning side’.
****”Lets watch Waldo tell me everything I need to know about myself.”
Oh Golly, this should be fun. Well, where to start…
You’re anal.
You’re an angry man.
You cannot stand people who disagree with you.
You are being disingenuously pedantic much of the time but I doubt that this tactic is accomplishing what you want it to.
You are wrong when you consider your opinion is equal to that of professional climate scientists.
You eat too much red meat.
You are a biochemist (or claim to be) who is willing to follow the brief, itinerant posts of a parks manager rather than the scientists charged by many nations to observe and analyze the climate. Which is strange…
You make the mistake of thinking that I am here to change your mind.
You watch too much TV and could use more exercise (but who couldn’t, right?).
You have apparently been goaded into becoming a troll yourself, which was unintentional…
You do not see many of exactly the same qualities in yourself that you denounce in others…which is very interesting…
You are willing to carry on a pointless conversation long after it serves any useful purpose, and now I am doing the same thing…
Shills,
You’ve now resorted to presenting a moving target.
“I didn’t say the public debate was not even. I’m talking about the scientific debate”
This is in stark contrast to your previous statement:
“Yeah right Wally, public perception is so trivial.”
Which was of course in responce to my comments about why it is improper to “weigh” the scientific debate by numbers of “believers.” In science the quality of data and analysis matter. Not the opinions of the scientists themselves. Many a unpopular thoeries in the sciences have come to be accepted.
So you need to pick what your actually talking about. Is the “public perception” or is it the actual science? If its the former, all we need are polls. If its the ladder, we need to attempt to objectively evaluate all the data and analysis ourselves. The strength of a scientific thoery is not shown through polls, even of scientists.
“I’m not gonna waist time linking you to evidence of this generally one sided debate. ”
Oh of course. Your side of the argument is free of the need to prove itself….
“I still suspect you are being disingenuously pedantic.”
Oh you SUSPECT…Gosh, we all can suspect what ever we want, the trick is proving it.
“You can call all this hot air if you like, but I don’t really care.”
Obviously not, as you continue to spew it.
“Deniers and skeptics are still just waisting their time writing blogs or books, whilst pop. science publications and even an undergrad. lecture on experimental methodology I went to uses climate skeptics as examples of deniers.”
Oh wow, you went to an undergrad lecture, spewing their “beliefs”…by who exactly? That’s how you know you’ve somehow “won?” Wow shills, and you call me disingenuous.
Waldo,
You know what that was fun reading what you think about me, I can’t help it, lets go through them.
>You’re anal.You’re an angry man.You cannot stand people who disagree with you.You are being disingenuously pedantic much of the time but I doubt that this tactic is accomplishing what you want it to.You are wrong when you consider your opinion is equal to that of professional climate scientists.You eat too much red meat.You are a biochemist (or claim to be) who is willing to follow the brief, itinerant posts of a parks manager rather than the scientists charged by many nations to observe and analyze the climate. Which is strange…You make the mistake of thinking that I am here to change your mind.You watch too much TV and could use more exercise (but who couldn’t, right?).You have apparently been goaded into becoming a troll yourself, which was unintentional…You do not see many of exactly the same qualities in yourself that you denounce in others…which is very interesting…You are willing to carry on a pointless conversation long after it serves any useful purpose, and now I am doing the same thing…<
HAHA, oh this is fun. I've NEVER seen a post of your that has any purpose what so ever, out side attempting irritate people. Like you said, you're not here to change minds…
Anyway, seeing just what you think you know about me has been…educational…And like I mentioned before, I think this list speaks more about yourself than about me.
I think we should meet waldo. It think we could use a little face to face interaction.
Waldo,
You know what that was fun reading what you think about me, I can’t help it, lets go through them.
“You’re anal.”
HAHA, that’s the first time anyone’s ever said that about me, and I usually here just the opposite actually.
“You’re an angry man.”
Also the first time I’ve heard that.
“You cannot stand people who disagree with you.”
That might be true. 1/3 so far.
“You are being disingenuously pedantic much of the time but I doubt that this tactic is accomplishing what you want it to.”
Look in the mirror son.
“You are wrong when you consider your opinion is equal to that of professional climate scientists.”
That’s not really something about me is it? That’s more about what you think. You know that whole “wrong” part.
“You eat too much red meat.”
Eh, I like a nice steak once a week, but that’s about it.
“You are a biochemist (or claim to be) who is willing to follow the brief, itinerant posts of a parks manager rather than the scientists charged by many nations to observe and analyze the climate. Which is strange…”
I’ve never said I’m a biochemist. I’m in more of a developmental genetic networks field, with a strong background in physics and engineer, which is where my modeling experience comes from.
“You make the mistake of thinking that I am here to change your mind.”
No, I’ve wondered what your motivation is. And if its not to attempt to change minds, the only other logical option is that you’re here to incite or to put in terms you would understand, to troll.
“You watch too much TV and could use more exercise (but who couldn’t, right?).”
HAHAHA, oh you should really meet me. MORE exercise? my wife compains about how much I exercise. I think you’re projecting yourself on to me quite a lot through this list. Are you sure you’re not the fat fool that needs to stop watching so much TV?
“You have apparently been goaded into becoming a troll yourself, which was unintentional…”
I’m only a troll for you Waldo, but its nice to see you imply you’re also a troll.
“You do not see many of exactly the same qualities in yourself that you denounce in others…which is very interesting…”
Back at ya!
“You are willing to carry on a pointless conversation long after it serves any useful purpose, and now I am doing the same thing…”
HAHA, oh this is fun. I’ve NEVER seen a post of your that has any purpose what so ever, out side attempting irritate people. Like you said, you’re not here to change minds…
Anyway, seeing just what you think you know about me has been…educational…And like I mentioned before, I think this list speaks more about yourself than about me.
I think we should meet waldo. It think we could use a little face to face interaction.
****”I think we should meet waldo. It think we could use a little face to face interaction.”
Well, next time you’re in the cold northern U.S., look me up.
And I didn’t actually expect you to respond to that – pretty funny there. But again, this is pointless.
Cheers.
Waldo,
“And I didn’t actually expect you to respond to that – pretty funny there. But again, this is pointless.”
No shit. Like Gandhi said, “Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.”
Wally,
You say: ‘So you need to pick what your actually talking about.’
those quotes of mine are not contradictory, if that’s what you’re implying. My point has not changed at all, you need to read it more carefully or something. Or I could draw you a diagram.
Read may 19 again.
you say; ‘Oh of course. Your side of the argument is free of the need to prove itself…’
Where was Meyer’s reference list again??
You say: ‘That’s how you know you’ve somehow “won?” Wow shills, and you call me disingenuous.’
You left out the robustness of the IPCC reports and science there. They certainly put us on the winning side.
****”my wife compains about how much I exercise”
Pole dancing?
Waldo,
That took you way too long…
Shills,
Its, uh, interesting(?) that you think I need to read more carefully. Maybe you need to think and then type more carefully?
Then, I don’t even know where to begin with someone that claims the IPCC reports are “robust.” I mean that’s a joke right?
***”That took you way too long…”
Granted. But you gotta admit, even though I have no idea what you look like, it’s a pretty funny picture.
Wally,
You say: ‘Its, uh, interesting(?) that you think I need to read more carefully. Maybe you need to think and then type more carefully?’
Nope, pretty sure you need to read more carefully.
You say: ‘I mean that’s a joke right?’
Not as funny as all those old denier web logs, giddy with excitement over the imminent crash of AGW following climategate, which has yet to happen.
Now here’s what I think’s a very telling comment, one that makes very clear the accuracy of claims DAGW advocates aren’t particularly interested in science, which pursues correctness regardless of source, but rather in political or ideological agendas:
“You left out the robustness of the IPCC reports and science there. They certainly put us on the winning side.”
That comment could only come from the perspective of such an agenda and reveals a fundamentally anti-Scientific point of view on the question.
***”the perspective of such an agenda and reveals a fundamentally anti-Scientific point of view”
This is exactly the sort of comment that starts one of our circular conversations – but I have to ask: in what way is the IPCC not “robust,” ADiff?
You may disagree with the science, I suppose, if you have enough of an understanding and some sort of viable science of your own (has anyone on this site done any first-hand research on the subject?), but whatever its other faults, the IPCC has done wide and thorough research, 1,000s of pages – and yes, a couple of the sources are none peer-reviewed (although used in a manner not inconsistent with their own guidelines) and yes, the IPCC transposed some numbers on when the glaciers will melt yadda yadda. Yet I am unaware of anyone able to knock them off their pedestal despite skeptics’ best efforts.
Furthermore, don’t you think that’s a little bit of hyperbole there, ADiff? That’s kind of a wild assertion from a guy who ostensibly claims objectivity.
As a critic of the critics, or a skeptic of the skeptics, ADiff’s statement betrays the mindset of someone with their own pretty vehement ideological agenda.
ADiff,
If you are referring to my use of the word ‘winning’, don’t worry, this is not a formal scientific forum. I merely mean ‘mainstream’.
There’ve been numerous discussions here and in other media criticizing the work of the IPCC, on every basis from inclusions of non-scientific findings as if on a par with scientific work, with purges of contributors on the basis of circling the PC wagons to exclude dissenting views, of potential conflicts of interest on the part of executive staff, of sampling bias in interest of producing a desired output, of treating contentious reports as if no dispute existed…and so on. All this is very visible on the web, in blogs, in scientific publications, NGO policy reviews, periodical articles, books, &etc. There’s no need to redundantly regurgitate common knowledge. But even more to the point, on top of the controversy surrounding its reports, is the media’s consistent focus on only the ‘worst case’ and most dramatically catastrophic from any range of predictions. If the IPCC says something like “the range of X is predicted to be from 1 to 1000, then it’s absolutely certain the press will release articles saying “X predicted to be 1000”, without mentioning that upper range prediction has a very low probability attached, too. DAGW advocates take this press as gospel and confuse it with even the flawed reports of IPCC, which even though flawed are actually far less alarmists than the MSM would have it.
Wanting to base policy on sound proven evidence isn’t ideology. Science is supposed to be indifferent to policy. But it seems with respect to DAGW some scientists have completely lost all the indifference so valuable to the pursuit of truth, and pursue science in service to the ‘Truth’ of an ideology….how much more so the various already ideological followers who take up their perception of the results in the effort to further their policy agendas? Very much more so, it seems.
Ideology belongs (when it belongs at all) in the area of policy, properly. But not at all in science. Oppenheimer (very pompously, IMO) said “Physicists have known Sin”, and now, with the disclosures of Climategate and the many questionable results justified in the interests of policy ends, the ‘Climate Scientists’ know Vice, too. Ah! But it’s really nothing new, and wasn’t in the 1940’s either. DAGW is just our generation’s version of Eugenics, and no doubt it’ll end up really ‘improving the race’, atlthough I doubt history will be as kind to today’s DAGW advocates as Time and Newsweek are to them today…..My guess is that depending on the degree the infatuation reaches, they’ll be considered somewhere along the continuum between Franz Josef Gall and Josef Mengele, hopefully (for all our sakes) rather more toward the former than the latter (which should be the case their license to dictate action being sufficiently constrained!)
Shills, A generation prior to Louis Pasteur, a doctor in Vienna decided that cleanliness and preventing contamination of wounds &etc would benefit patients, especially in child delivery. He instituted a rigorous cleanliness protocol which had the effect of drastically reducing mortality rates. The medical scientists and medical practitioners of the time generally resented his program, believed it wrong, especially as it was contrary to almost all the consensus science at the time, and resented him (his family was Jewish)… They stood firmly on their consensus Science, and the general acceptance of its models and theories, and ignored the observational results that made the only (and best) case for this approach that contradicted the conventional wisdom of the experts. After his demise (he was a discredited and broken man long before his actual death) they undid his program, and returned to operations to the almost universally agreed view of the sources of infection and sickness…miasmic vapors. Mortality returned to previous levels. In a word: they ‘won’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
It wasn’t ‘science’ then. And it isn’t now. It’s about politics, ideology, self-aggrandizement, and the pervasive narcissism of Western academia (and our technocratic elites, in general).
If it’s can be about “us” and about “winning”, then it certainly isn’t about the Science.
ADiff,
The IPCC science still holds up. Where are the fatal mistakes?
You deniers all love your allusions in analogies of eugenics and victorian era science to AGW. But, as so many of you insist on saying, wouldn’t it be best to just look at the science? No ideology, no politics and no lame historical analogies?
If your point is simply that consensus doesn’t nec. equal truth, then I hear you loud and clear.
Shills,
“The IPCC science still holds up. Where are the fatal mistakes?”
I guess you don’t care for others relying on facts they believe to be common knowledge, and thus not providing references for them, in their arguments either?
What shock!
Shills,
“The IPCC science still holds up. Where are the fatal mistakes?”
I guess you don’t care for others relying on facts they believe to be common knowledge, and thus not providing references for them, in their arguments either?
What shock!
“No ideology, no politics and no lame historical analogies? ”
How’d that quote go? “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Historical analogies can be very valuable leasons for current issues. To just brush off a possibly valid analogy as “lame” is nothing more than appeal to ridicule.
Wally,
You say: ‘I guess you don’t care for others relying on facts they believe to be common knowledge, and thus not providing references for them, in their arguments either?’
If such facts existed I think the media would be all over it. And, for sure, Meyer would be typing furiously on his blog about it; not happening.
Anyway, fair enough if you think it is common knowledge. But I’m just gonna wait for the collapse of the IPCC and climate science which must surely ensue.
you say: ‘To just brush off a possibly valid analogy as “lame” is nothing more than appeal to ridicule.’
Well fine if some of you deniers think historical analogues work nicely to supplement your lacking peer-reviewed science then be my guess. But Wally, I have to ask, do you guys have any confidence intervals on those analogues?
I have noticed that we are all too tired to re-post our findings from previous conversations and thus we are all posting in generalities, which is fine, we’ve all been around this block a time or two, and that we are now rehashing the same old arguments…
Nevertheless, ADiff:
****”There’ve been numerous discussions here and in other media criticizing the work of the IPCC”
Yes, and I’m going to suggest that these criticisms have revolved around numerous inaccuracies (such as the argument that the IPCC does not make its data or programs available – which is demonstrably false and has been demonstrated as such; or that the work is unrepeatable – again, demonstrably false and has been demonstrated as such, and so on). Therefore the majority of these criticism should be discarded as spurious.
****”on every basis from inclusions of non-scientific findings as if on a par with scientific work”
Again, this is inaccurate. In the midst of thousands of peer-reviewed articles, a few newspaper reports have appeared which cover then current issues (such as wildfires or flood insurance rates) which are the kinds of things which shouldn’t need peer-review and only the pedantry of the deniosphere finds significant. In other cases the IPCC relied on reports from expert sources which themselves were not peer-reviewed but, upon inspection, were clearly based on peer-reviewed sources which were then truncated for presentation. It is extremely disingenuous to post that non-scientific findings were used in any other way than were dictated in the IPCC’s own guidelines (which were posted some time ago on another thread – it’s there for all to see or can be found with relative ease on Google).
****”with purges of contributors on the basis of circling the PC wagons to exclude dissenting views”
Never seen this. And I don’t think this is true. The CRU emails (where this argument usually circles back to) prove absolutely nothing and have been the focus of official probes which cleared the scientists. “PC” is generally the fallback of the deniosphere when it does not like what it hears – again, this is disingenuous, because it is not the scientists raising the PC cudgel, it is you, ADiff.
*****”of potential conflicts of interest on the part of executive staff, of sampling bias in interest of producing a desired output, of treating contentious reports as if no dispute existed…and so on. All this is very visible on the web, in blogs, in scientific publications, NGO policy reviews, periodical articles, books, &etc.”
Not really. Repeatedly we’ve looked at these sources (C3 was the latest) only to find spin-doctors, amateurs, and plain old misinformation at work.
****”There’s no need to redundantly regurgitate common knowledge.”
But common knowledge is repeatedly distorted here, my friend.
****”the media’s consistent focus on only the ‘worst case’ and most dramatically catastrophic from any range of predictions.”
Well, two things: 1) be fair, the media also leaps on any chance to embarrass climate scientists (this blog would be in sad shape if it didn’t) and 2) if your problem is with the media, fine, you’re not alone, but leave the actual science and scientists out of it.
****”DAGW advocates take this press as gospel and confuse it with even the flawed reports of IPCC”
Again, be fair. If we take this proposition as true, and I would agree it is true, the DAGW deniers take any press coverage that embarrasses or challenges AGW science and the scientists as their own form of gospel. As I’ve said before, CS would be a very empty, boring place without the tabloid press.
****”Wanting to base policy on sound proven evidence isn’t ideology. Science is supposed to be indifferent to policy.”
Sooooo…are you suggesting CS is indifferent to ideology and policy? Pot meet kettle.
****”But it seems with respect to DAGW some scientists have completely lost all the indifference so valuable to the pursuit of truth”
Even if this is true (and there’s not much evidence that it is), pot meet kettle, ADiff. But this is really more of the sort of ad hom attacks which characterize the deniosphere. And we all know how the people here feel about ad hom and personal attacks on character, right fellas? It is simply very ironic that you are so concerned with it here yet do not see this in yourself.
*****”DAGW is just our generation’s version of Eugenics, and no doubt it’ll end up really ‘improving the race'”
This is perhaps the worse analog I’ve heard. The only purpose for this comparison is its emotional incitement. Who was mixing ideology, science and policy, ADiff? Haven’t there been discussions of propaganda on this blog? Hmmmmmm…
Pot. Meet. Kettle.
Shills,
“Anyway, fair enough if you think it is common knowledge. But I’m just gonna wait for the collapse of the IPCC and climate science which must surely ensue.”
Whoa! Who’s claiming he collapse of the IPCC or climate science in general will, or should, come of any of this?
Though it is nice to see that you may now understand the idiocy of hiding behind “common knowledge.”
“Well fine if some of you deniers think historical analogues work nicely to supplement your lacking peer-reviewed science then be my guess. But Wally, I have to ask, do you guys have any confidence intervals on those analogues?”
Oh shills, come now, we all (should) know CI can only be applied to numerical data. What mean are we dealing with here exactly?
I supposed lessons from history could be turned into numerical data if we tried (for example, gather every possible break through in science and determine how often the “consensus” was wrong about it, and I’d guess this number approaches 100%), but surely no right minded individual would believe we could put a CI around one analogy.
****”determine how often the “consensus” was wrong about it, and I’d guess this number approaches 100%”
Hmmmm…so all scientific breakthroughs come from a single avant-garde scientist? Okay. Darwin: Evolution. Becquerel: x-Rays. Einstein: Manhattan Project. Hansen: Global Climate Change.
But no, we’d rather Hansen be the bad guy. Okay, so who is this breakthrough individual who has conclusively proven AGW false? Lindzen? Pielke? Or have they failed to make a convincing case yet…
Wally,
‘Whoa! Who’s claiming he collapse of the IPCC or climate science in general will, or should, come of any of this?’
Yeah, I don’t mean climate science in general, I mean the AGW science. If the things ADiff said are true then the IPCC and the science would be discredited, and a fair number of peeps will lose careers, or reputations, over it.
You say: ‘Though it is nice to see that you may now understand the idiocy of hiding behind “common knowledge.”’
I only hope that you grow out of hiding behind pedantic questions.
YOu say: ‘Oh shills, come now, we all (should) know CI can only be applied to numerical data. What mean are we dealing with here exactly?’
Lol. This was meant to be a snide joke. See, Many many months ago you asked me to give data to back up the proposition that a consensus-held belief was more likely to be correct then a minority belief. Very similar question.
Hard task quantifying such things isn’t it?
Maybe we should just forget about history and put the focus on getting some good solid skeptic science out there, no?
Eugenics was accepted as “Consensus Science” for the better part of two generations before being revealed as the ideological collusion it actually was. It’s a vast mistake to think the truth will prevail as rapidly and clearly as some seem to assume. Even for decades after its utter discredit laws were enforced in the United States pursuing eugenic ends that resulted in wrongful incarceration, sterilization and ‘neglectful elimination’ of thousands of American citizens. A paradigm that serves the desires of self-appointed intellectual elites for self-aggrandizement and simultaneously provides government and corporate institutions opportunities for self-enrichment will not quickly disappear, even in the face of obvious falsifications. The ability of people to see what they WANT to see should not be under-estimated.
As warming becomes more and more obviously consistent with unexceptional variation, and not the Emergency, Unprecedented crisis the hysteria purports, commitments will of course be limited by pragmatism, but the hysteria and ideology of this latest ‘Scientific’ messianism will persist and mutate. Even though Greenland’s icecap doesn’t slide into the sea (or even shrink appreciably), hurricanes don’t multiply and lay waste both coasts, droughts don’t crush the entire northern hemisphere, the ice caps don’t disappear…fears will not disappear either and neither will those who will profit from hysteria where ever it can be found. DAGW really isn’t anything new in this sense, just the latest opportunity for would-be saviors to flex their god-like intellectual muscles…and others to profit thereby.
Shills,
If I remember correctly you (or someone else was when you forced your way into the conversation) was arguing that it is logical to go with the consensus in the absence of doing any thinking for yourself. If you’re going to make that argument, you at least need to demonstrate that the consensus is more likely to be right than wrong. Yes, its a difficult thing to answer, but just because its hard doesn’t get you off the hook.
Now in this situation we’re dealing with a singular analogy (well now its two). I don’t think anyone is arguing that DAGW is exactly like eugenics or basic sterile technique, but simply pointing out that the consensus is often wrong. Thus, it is not logical to blindly believe the consensus without further data. Which brings us right back to the issue above. Either you have prove the consensus is actually more likely to be right than wrong, and hopefully at a significantly better rate, or you need to deal with the subject matter specifically (including all data collection and analysis methods, as well as the logic behind drawing conclusion from that data), which you generally don’t do.
****”you need to deal with the subject matter specifically”
And you, Wally, are steadfastly ignoring the third and forth parts of your equation of data + ‘thinking for yourself,’ which are ‘do you know what the hell you are talking about?’ and ‘how the hell do you know that you are not being lied to?’
I happily concede that you have a background in physics and engineering and now work in genetics, and like all but a very few outspoken critics of AGW, you are not an expert in the field, do not actually work in the field, and don’t apparently go to the vast amounts of data generated by the actual scientists who work in the field but take your information from CS or places like it.
So, the proof of consensus argument seems like a red herring to me. Isn’t there a consensus that smoking causes cancer, that uranium can be used to make atomic bombs, that alcohol is bad for unborn children, etc., etc., etc. And yes, there is plenty of evidence for GCC, AGW or even DAGW – but it is very seldom dealt with on this blog (Mr. Meyer’s post up-top is a plaint about a magazine article in which the deniosphere gets a dose of its own medicine; the next post is about lawyers and flood claims which somehow equates to Al Gore’s movie; the next post is a 100 word-ish summary of Monkton at Heartland [unbiased sources there!]; after that is a cross-posting from another blog; after that, an excerpt from USA Today about lion warning calls which also somehow relates to AL Gore; and finally a picture of a park which Mr. Meyer oversees). So please, Wally, if you are claim to be dealing independently with “the data” and thinking for yourself, what are you doing here?
And then there is ADiff who posts such flowery unsupported hyperbole as “just the latest opportunity for would-be saviors to flex their god-like intellectual muscles…and others to profit thereby” and yet the critical thinkers here seem to give a pass this sort of excited rhetoric.